<p>The purpose of this essay is to critically review three different contributions to the agency – structure debate from a political science perspective. My opinon is that the agency – structure debate is one of the main problems within the social science. The theories which I will examine are Lennart Berntsons theory from 1974, Lennart Lundquists from 1984 and Walter Carlsnaes from 1992. These political scientists all have different perspectives to the problem. My aim is to compare three theories that is of importance to the problem. But I also want to show that there are problems with each of these theories. No one really solves the problem. I want to shed some light on the different problems which these theories encounter and I also want to show were the solution to these problems might be found.</p><p>It is obvious that the theories have a similar view on the actor (or agent). Each see the actor as both an individual and a collective, such as a party, state or an organisation. They also see the actor in a constant relation to the society. The two main differences between the theories is when it comes to defining the structures and when it comes to trying to connecting the actor with the structure. Berntson sees the connection as mainly classoriented and this provides valuable knowledge to the debate. However, compared to Berntson, Lundquists theory is more thoroughly worked out when it comes to providing knowledge to how agents are affected by structures. This, I would say, is the biggest advantage with Lundquists theory. Finally, Carlsnaes theory, compared to both Berntson and Lundquist, is the least developed one, at least when it comes to defining both the actor and the structure. Though, I still consider his theory of importance. This is because his contribution to the knowledge on how we might explain structural change.</p>

The purpose of this essay is to critically review three different contributions to the agency – structure debate from a political science perspective. My opinon is that the agency – structure debate is one of the main problems within the social science. The theories which I will examine are Lennart Berntsons theory from 1974, Lennart Lundquists from 1984 and Walter Carlsnaes from 1992. These political scientists all have different perspectives to the problem. My aim is to compare three theories that is of importance to the problem. But I also want to show that there are problems with each of these theories. No one really solves the problem. I want to shed some light on the different problems which these theories encounter and I also want to show were the solution to these problems might be found. It is obvious that the theories have a similar view on the actor (or agent). Each see the actor as both an individual and a collective, such as a party, state or an organisation. They also see the actor in a constant relation to the society. The two main differences between the theories is when it comes to defining the structures and when it comes to trying to connecting the actor with the structure. Berntson sees the connection as mainly classoriented and this provides valuable knowledge to the debate. However, compared to Berntson, Lundquists theory is more thoroughly worked out when it comes to providing knowledge to how agents are affected by structures. This, I would say, is the biggest advantage with Lundquists theory. Finally, Carlsnaes theory, compared to both Berntson and Lundquist, is the least developed one, at least when it comes to defining both the actor and the structure. Though, I still consider his theory of importance. This is because his contribution to the knowledge on how we might explain structural change.