Main Limitations of Structural Functional Approach as Pointed out by the Critics are given below:
(1) Focus on Static Relations:
The Structural-Functional Approach tends to focus primarily on static relationships rather than on dynamics. The approach is concerned, above all, with the problems of systemic survival, the requirement of stable adaptation and the operation of various functions and structures oriented towards system maintenance.
(2) Difficulties in using it:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The approach presents problems of operationalisation. It ignores the fact that there is no scientific way to determine what the functions of a political system are.
(3) Fails to lay down Priorities of Functions:
While suggesting the study of functions, it fails to specify which functions are more important than the others. Without such a standard, one has to accept an unacceptable proposition that all functions are basic to all the political systems.
Image Source: hcldr.files.wordpress.com
(4) Ignores the study of Crises and Revolution:
This approach ignores the study of political crises and revolutions or military and civil coups, which characterise or can characterise all political systems, particularly the Asian and African political systems.
(5) Excludes the study of Values:
The Structural-Functional Approach is again inadequate because it gives no place to the study of goals and values which condition the political behaviour in all the political systems.
(6) Roles cannot be studied without the study of Individual and their Institutions:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Structural-Functional Approach, like every other scientific approach, ignores the study of individuals and their groups. It concentrates only on their roles.
Despite these limitations, no one can deny the utility of Structural-Functional Approach in the study of Politics.
In fact, several political scientists have successfully and productively used this approach in the study of both Politics and Comparative Politics. Almond and Powell have been its strongest protagonists.