Who among the following makes a distinction between system maintenance and system persistence?

Easton's approach is more interested in systems maintenance, while having little material to go beyond its persistence — showing he explicitly worked with both concepts and distinguished between them. Easton made a crucial distinction between Equilibrium and Persistence: Equilibrium implies a return to a fixed state of balance, while Persistence suggests that a system might need to change its entire structure, goals, and internal logic to survive.

• System Persistence: Stands for the continuation of the capacity of a system to make and execute binding decisions of allocation on its members
• System Maintenance: Refers to a system preserving its existing structures and status quo, a narrower and more static concept than persistence
• Why the Distinction Matters: A system "persists" if it continues to perform the function of authoritatively allocating values, even if it changes from a monarchy to a republic in the process — meaning persistence allows structural change, while maintenance does not
• Why Others Don't Fit: Almond focused on structural-functionalism and political culture, Pye worked on political development and communication, and Riggs developed the "prismatic society" model — none are linked to this specific maintenance-persistence distinction