The article deals with the conflict between macro and micro approaches for theory development and conducting research. It argues that one must be liberated from the illusion that political scientists have developed general and empirical theories, and ought to recognize the fact that existing theories are vague, wide, abstract and non empirical - macro-theories whose efficiency is extremely limited. Their contribution is worthless unless viable to be translated into micro-applications. It should be remembered that the political process is theoretically bound and the more valid theories are the closer they get to our political vision.
LaPalombara emphasizes the importance of the comparative study occupied with smaller political units - micro-applications - in order to reform the defects which originate from dealing with extensive theoretical systems hence paving the way to improved empirical theories relating to larger systems.
The background to writing the article seems to be the ferment in the field of "new" comparative research: Political scientists are, according to the author, in a momentum of accumulation of theoretical and methodological knowledge, while searching for, so called, new formulae, which are actually the same. Some overestimate, treating it as revolutionary thus emphasizing the changes in the discipline's wide theoretical orientation. LaPalombara distinguishes between the theoretical ferment and the development of newer and stricter methodologies. The hope for the advancement of the field of political science lies in the application of the above strict methodologies to important difficulties and problems found in the middle range, dealing with the smaller systems of the political entity.
The writer criticize Easton's functional theory (and macro-theory) that maintain that each body in the political system has a certain function to fulfill. The criticism centers in the invalidity of the theory when alternative functions exist and when there are several structures to maintain similar functions (Merton). LaPalombara claims that comparative politics which is not adequately cross-cultural (in other words, concentrates on the entire system or parts of it) as much as it is cross-national (concentrates on institutions such as legislatures, political parties, interest groups etc.), distorts the nature of politics in areas where such institutions do not exist, or have acquired a meaning which is different from the acceptable Western one. The result is inaccurate, misleading generalizations.
Political scientists ought to devote more research attention to parts of the political system due to the existing information gap and our need to fill it before being allowed to create vast theoretical and empirical formulae. Consequently, it is vital to increase the number of comparative researchers in various states, focus on middle range research to enable examination of institutions involved in political processes. Then, one may be able to offer research propositions to create applicable, universal generalizations to be validated through various many states.
The author relates to difficulties involved with comparative research as well: The dilemma of selecting the most important unit of analysis while dealing with partial systems, whereas the political scientist must carefully choose whatever might be relevant to the political process. An additional problem lies in the ability to conduct a comparison using the chosen unit of analysis and the nature of the data collected to verify or refute theories. It must be taken into account that part of it is incomparable, poor or unreliable, subjected to various mistakes. Such information can be misleading. Furthermore, as we tend to search throughout our written historical records for information to assist us to validate or invalidate research propositions dealing with political development, we ought to understand the meaning the institutions we examine have acquired in an individual society and in a specific historical period.