DEFINING THE STATE

Origins and development of the state

The state is a historical institution: it emerged in sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century Europe as a system of centralized rule that succeeded in subordinating
all other institutions and groups, including (and especially) the Church, bringing
an end to the competing and overlapping authority systems that had
characterized Medieval Europe.
The State: The state is a political association that establishes sovereign
Jurisdiction within defined territorial borders, and exercises authority through a
set of permanent institutions.
Approaches to the state
The idealist approach to the state is most clearly reflected in the writings of G.
W. F. Hegel. Hegel identified three 'moments' of social existence.
Functionalist approaches to the state focus on the role or purpose of state
institutions. The central function of the state is invariably seen as the
maintenance of social order, the state being defined as that set of institutions
that uphold order and deliver social stability.
The organizational view defines the state as the apparatus of government in its
broadest sense; that is, as that set of institutions that are recognizably 'public, in
that they are responsible for the collective organization of social existence and
are funded at the public's expense. The virtue of this definition is that it
distinguishes clearly between the state and civil society.
Idealism: A view of politics that emphasizes the importance of morality and
ideals; philosophical idealism implies that ideas are more 'real' than
the material world.
Civil society: A private sphere of autonomous groups and associations,
independent from state or public authority

-1-
In this light, it is possible to identify five key features of the state:
▪ The state is sovereign. It exercises absolute and unrestricted power, in that
it stands above all other associations and groups in society.
▪ State institutions are recognizably public in contrast to the 'private'
institutions of civil society.
▪ The state is an exercise in legitimation. The decisions of the state are
usually (although not necessarily) accepted as binding on the members of
society because, it is claimed, they are made in the public interest, or for
the common good; the state supposedly reflects the permanent
interests of society.
▪ The state is an instrument of domination. State authority is backed up by
coercion; the state must have the capacity to ensure that its laws are
obeyed and that transgressors are punished. For Max Weber, the state was
defined by its monopoly of the means of "legitimate violence.
▪ The state is a territorial association. The jurisdiction of the state is
geographically defined, and it encompasses all those who live within the
state's borders, whether they are citizens or non-citizens. On the
international stage, the state is therefore regarded (at least, in theory) as an
autonomous entity.
According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the state has four
features:
▪ A defined territory
▪ A permanent population
▪ An effective government
▪ The capacity to enter into relations with other states.
This approach to the state brings it very close to the notion of a 'country'. The
main difference between how the state is understood by political philosophers
and sociologists, and how it is understood by international relations (IR)
scholars is that, while the former treat civil society as separate from the state,
the latter treat civil society as part of the state, in that it encompasses not only
an effective government, but also a permanent population. For some, the
international approach views the state essentially as a legal person, in which
-2-
case statehood depends on formal recognition by other states or international
bodies. In this view, the United Nations (UN) is widely accepted as the body
that, by granting full membership, determines when a new state has come into
existence. However, in order to assess the significance of the state, and explore
its vital relationship to politics, two key issues have to be addressed. These deal
with the nature of state power and the roles and responsibilities the state has
assumed and should assume.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited
power. However, sovereignty can be understood in different ways. Legal
sovereignty refers to supreme legal authority, defined in terms of the 'right' to
command compliance, while political sovereignty refers to absolute political
power, defined in terms of the 'ability' to command compliance. Internal
sovereignty is the notion of supreme power/authority within the state (for
example, parliamentary sovereignty: see p. 300). External sovereignty relates to
a state's place in the international order and its capacity to act as an independent
and autonomous entity.
DEBATING THE STATE
Rival theories of the state
What is the nature of state power, and whose interests does the state represent?
From this perspective, the state is an 'essentially contested concept. There are
various rival theories of the state, each of which offers a different account of its
origins, development and impact on society. Indeed, controversy about the
nature of state power has increasingly dominated modern political analysis and
goes to the heart of ideological and theoretical disagreements in the discipline.
These relate to questions about whether, for example, the state is autonomous
and independent of society, or whether it is essentially a product of society, a
reflection of the broader distribution of power or resources. Moreover, does the
state serve the common or collective good. or is it biased in favour of privileged
groups or a dominant class? Similarly, is the state a positive or constructive

-3-
force, with responsibilities that should be enlarged. or is it a negative or
destructive entity that must be constrained or, perhaps, smashed altogether?
Four contrasting theories of the state can be identified as follows:
▪ The pluralist state
▪ The capitalist state
▪ The leviathan state
▪ The patriarchal state.
The pluralist state
The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal lineage. It stems from
the belief that the state acts as an 'umpire' or 'referee' in society. This view has
also dominated mainstream political analysis, accounting for a tendency, at
least within Anglo-American thought, to discount the state and state
organizations and focus instead on government. Indeed.
State of nature: A society devoid of political authority and of formal (legal)
checks on the individual; usually employed as a theoretical device.
Divine right: The doctrine that earthly rulers are chosen by God and thus wield
unchallengeable authority; a defence for monarchical absolutism.
Anarchy: Literally, 'without rule'; anarchy is often used pejoratively to suggest
instability or even chaos.
FOCUS ON…
SOCIAL-CONTRACT THEORY
A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals through
which an organized society, or state, is brought into existence. Used as a
theoretical device by thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the social
contract has been revived by modern theorists such as John Rawls. The social
contract is seldom regarded as a historical act. Rather, it is used as a means of
demonstrating the value of government and the grounds of political obligation;
social-contract theorists wish individuals to act as if they had concluded the
contract themselves. In its classic form, social-contract theory has three
elements:

-4-
 ▪ The image of a hypothetical stateless society (a 'state of nature') is
established. Unconstrained freedom means that life is 'solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short' (Hobbes).
▪ Individuals therefore seek to escape from the state of nature by entering
into a social contract, recognizing that only a sovereign power can secure
order and stability.
▪ The social contract obliges citizens to respect and obey the state,
ultimately in gratitude for the stability and security that only a system of
political rule can deliver.
The capitalist state
The Marxist notion of a capitalist state offers a clear alternative to the pluralist
image of the state as a neutral arbiter or umpire. Marxists have typically argued
that the state cannot be understood separately from the economic structure of
society. This view has usually been understood in terms of the classic
formulation that the state is nothing but an instrument of class oppression: the
state emerges out of, and in a sense reflects, the class system. Nevertheless, a
rich debate has taken place within Marxist theory in recent years that has moved
the Marxist theory of the state a long way from this classic formulation. In
many ways, the scope to revise Marxist attitudes towards the state stems from
ambiguities that can be found in Marx's own writings.
A second, more complex and subtle, theory of the state can nevertheless be
found in Marx's analysis of the revolutionary events in France between 1848
and 1851, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte ([1852] 1963). Marx
suggested that the state could enjoy what has come to be seen as 'relative
autonomy' from the class system, the Napoleonic state being capable of
imposing its will upon society, acting as an 'appalling parasitic body. If the state
did articulate the interests of any class, it was not those of the bourgeoisie, but
those of the most populous class in French society, the smallholding peasantry.
Although Marx did not develop this view in detail, it is clear that, from this
perspective, the autonomy of the state is only relative, in that the state appears
to mediate between conflicting classes, and so maintains the class system
itself in existence.

-5-
Neopluralism
Neopluralism is a style of social theorizing that remains faithful to pluralist
values while recognizing the need to revise or update classical pluralism in the
light of, for example, elite, Marxist and New Right theories. Although
neopluralism embraces a broad range of perspectives and positions, certain
central themes can be identified. First, it takes account of modernizing trends,
such as the emergence of postindustrial society. Second, while capitalism is
preferred to socialism, free-market economic doctrines are usually regarded as
obsolete. Third, Western democracies are seen as 'deformed polyarchies', in
which major corporations exert disproportionate influence.

-6-
POLITICS IN ACTION…
SOCIALISM: A DEAD IDEOLOGY?
Events: The early twentieth century witnessed the forward march of socialism
in its different forms. The expansion of the franchise to include, over time,
working-class voters gave a powerful impetus to the growth of democratic
socialism. In 1914, for instance, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) became the
largest party in the German parliament. The 1917 Russian Revolution
demonstrated the potency of revolutionary socialism, by leading to the creation
of the world's first socialist state. Socialism's influence spread yet more widely
in the aftermath of World War II. As orthodox communism spread throughout
Eastern Europe and into China, Cuba and beyond, democratic socialist parties,
practising Keynesian social democracy, often dominated the policy agenda,
even, sometimes, converting liberal and conservative parties to 'socialist-style'
thinking. However, the advance of socialism was reversed in the final decades
of the twentieth century. This occurred most dramatically during 1989-91
through the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet
Union. In China, although the communist regime survived, an accelerating
process of market reform was begun. During the same period, democratic
socialist parties in many parts of the world often retreated from traditional
values, adopting policy agendas that appeared to be more closely related to
liberalism and conservatism than to any recognizable form of socialism.
Significance: Socialism has undoubtedly gone through some difficult times
since the final decades of the twentieth century. But does this betoken the end
of socialism as a meaningful ideological force, incapable of revival or
regeneration? Quite simply: is socialism dead? Those who argue it is claim that
socialism's demise simply reflects the manifest superiority of capitalism over
socialism as an economic model. In this view, capitalism is a uniquely effective
means of generating wealth, and thereby of delivering prosperity. This is
because it is based on a market mechanism that naturally draws resources to
their most profitable use. Socialism's key flaw is that, by relying on the state to
make economic life, whether through a system of comprehensive planning or a
mixed economy, it is doomed to inefficiency. Any group of planners or
-7-
officials, however dedicated and well-trained, are certain to be overwhelmed by
the sheer complexity of a modern economy. These things had always been the
case, but they became particularly apparent with the advent of globalization in
the final decades of the twentieth century. Time, in a sense, had caught up with
socialism. Globalization widened the gulf between capitalism and socialism.
While capitalism benefited from freer trade, new investment opportunities and
sharpened competition in a globalized economy, socialism suffered from the
fact that it further restricted the scope for national economic management.
Socialism's prospects may not be so gloomy, however. Hopes for the survival of
socialism rest largely on the enduring, and perhaps intrinsic, imperfections of
the capitalist system. As Ralph Miliband (1995) put it, 'the notion that
capitalism has been thoroughly transformed and represents the best that
humankind can ever hope to achieve is a dreadful slur on the human race'. In
that sense, socialism is destined to survive if only because it serves as a
reminder that human development can extend beyond market individualism.
Moreover, globalization may bring opportunities for socialism as well as
challenges. Just as capitalism has been transformed by the growing significance
of the supranational dimension of economic life, socialism may be in the
process of being transformed into a critique of global exploitation and
inequality. Finally, there is evidence of a revival of socialism in the emergence
of left-wing populist parties and movements, such as the UK Labour Party
under Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Saunders' campaign for the Democratic
nomination in the 2016 US presidential election, Syriza in Greece and
Podemos in Spain.

-8-