The State

1. Society-centred theories

2. State-centred theories

Different theories of the state

Max Weber defined the state as being a clear geographical area within which the state has authority over the people within it, which includes the use of force to control the people within the state

Theories of the state

Pluralist theories of the state, see the state in Western democracies as representing the interests of everyone within the state (pressure groups, general elections)

Therefore no one group dominates – there’s no ruling elite; no ruling class; and power is dispersed rather than concentrated

Dunleavy and O’Leary identified three main pluralist views of the state:

Dunleavy and O’Leary

The weathervane model – The neutral state model The broker state model –

Dunleavy and O’Leary

The weathervane model – this sees the state as acting like a weathervane by reflecting public opinion.

For example if enough members of the public wanted to bring back hanging and Parliament decided to re-introduce because of public opinion then the state was acting like a weathervane by reacting to public opinion (via pressure groups).

The question is, is Parliament viewed as being proactive or reactive?

Neutral State Model

The neutral state model – this model is dismissive of the above as it says the state gets more involved as it acts as a referee between the competing groups. It does this by listening to all the views on an issue and then makes a decision.

An example of this is the current issue over whether to have nuclear power stations to generate our electricity. The state’s decision is made on balance from assessing all the competing points of view and coming to a workable compromise. Therefore compared to the ‘weathervane mode’ the state is far more active

Broker State Model

The broker-state model – sees the competing groups in society as having their own agenda which reflect their particular issues. Therefore the state simply negotiates (brokers) between the vested interests of these groups and creates policies which satisfy the these groups while at the same time reflecting the concerns of state officials.

The best examples of this occur in Denmark, Norway and Sweden where there are regular meetings between strategic elites such as business leaders, unions and agricultural leaders in deciding the government’s economic policy

Marxist theories of the state

Marx saw the state as acting in the interests of the ruling class

Not all Marxists agree how and why the state acts in the interests of the ruling class

Miliband’s instrumentalist (state officials share the same interests and background of ruling class)

Poulantzas’ structuralist approach (the state simply operates in the interests of capital)

Neo-Marxist theories of the state

These ideas use Gramsci’s ideas which separate the economic base into two distinct areas – political society and civil society

Political society uses civil society to achieve hegemony ( in other words the dominance about an idea) through concessions

Just think how the media sells ideas to society as being normal i.e. minimum wage

Neo-Marxist theories of the state

Stuart Hall GUMG looked at how the state in the 1970s got people to fear black muggers

Thus the state used crime as a way of diverting peoples attention away from high unemployment and spiralling inflation

Thus hegemony was achieved about black muggers which meant attention was diverted away from society’s economic ills

Neo-Marxist theories of the state

Therefore the state is seen to cement different sections of society by getting the majority of the population to accept a ‘national project’ (an agreed set of ideas) for example Thatcher’s selling off of council houses

New Right theories of the state

New Right thinkers are critical of excessive state intervention and prefer to roll-back the state

They argue the ‘free market’ should be used to deliver education and health-care. This means people as consumers should be given more choice and through choice the suppliers of education and health will improve their services

Labour has historically encouraged state intervention in order that services like education and health-care are available to everyone; whereas the Conservatives have historically sought to reduce the role of the state

New Right Continued

Key names in the New Right (neo-liberal) perspective are Milton Friedman and Peter Bauer. They both emphasised laissez-faire economic policy, otherwise known as a free market economy

Friedman argues the existence of a free market does not eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a for deciding the rules of the game but as an umpire overseeing the rules are played correctly

New Right Continued

Friedman position was governments should only get involved with four areas of the economy:

Defence

Law and Order

The provision of the necessary public works that private enterprise doesn’t find profitable

Protection from members of the community who ‘cannot be regarded as responsible individuals.’

New Right Continued

Peter Bauer advocated additional responsibility’s for government

Health and education

The management of monetary and fiscal (tax/spending) system

New Right Evaluation

Noam Chomsky’s book Profit over People, 1999, argues that neo-liberal economics has reduced the power of ordinary people to influence government policy as it has merely served to increase the wealth and power of unelected executives of corporations.

Chomsky points out reducing the role of the state (and its size) restricts its capacity to improve or assist vulnerable people in society.

Therefore reduced state involvement, reduces the power of the state to shape society according to its wishes (state centred theorists) or the wishes of the people (pluralist state theory).

State-centred theories

So far we’ve covered a number of perspectives of the state.

We’ve seen pluralists argue society-centred theorists’ argue the state reflects the views of its people; elite theorists put power in the hands of a small minority;

Marxists sees the state as being shaped by a ruling-class; while neo-Marxists argue the state has relative autonomy from the ruling class, but as the state was part if the superstructure it inevitably serves the interests of the ruling-class

State-centred theories unlike society-centred theories see the state as an independent entity which can act on its own agendas

State-centred theories

Like Nordlinger, Theda Skocpol argues that states have their own priorities and goals. She argues that weak states bring their own downfall rather than class struggles

State Centred Continued..

For Nordlinger all the above perspectives are effectively all society-centred because social-groups – be they large or small – influence the state in some form or other.

In contrast Nordlinger’s argument is the state acts independent to its people, to the extent it acts autonomously through three mechanisms or what he termed types

Type 1 Type 1 – state autonomy occurs when the state has different wishes and desires to the people – usually via civil servants who can

set the agenda through decision or non-decision making

use honours system or government contracts to opponents

State Centred Continued..

Type 2 – state autonomy by manipulating public opinion to support government thus wining the argument, for example Ian Duncan-Smith manipulated jobless figures in relation to benefit cap as well as the state trying to manipulate public opinion to further reduce access to legal aid

Type 3- state autonomy when the state supports policies by powerful interest groups in society for example Britain’s Israel Lobby

State Centred Continued..

Another influential state-centred theorist is Theda Skocpol. Like Nordlinger she argues pluralists, Marxists and neo-Marxists all assume the state is shaped by external pressures because state’s are autonomous structures that have interests all of their own which it can act on because:

 sovereignty alone gives the state reason enough to do as it wishes

the more tax revenue it collects the power it has, therefore the richer a nation the powerful it becomes

the wealthier a state the better educated civil servants it can employ which deprives non-state organisations from employing more able individuals who would then challenge the state’s power

State Centred Continued..

For Skocpol then a state ability to hold power or not depends on the extent to which opposition groups in society are organised or not.

Therefore a state becomes more powerful if it stops or outlaws opposition groups.

But states are vulnerable to globalised terror, global markets, think of Greece and Ireland and are vulnerable to internal organised groups – this takes us to globalisation but first we’ll look at postmodern theories of the state.

Globalisation and the state

Nearly everything we’ve looked at has been in the context of the nation-state and its sovereignty

Globalisation, for some sociologists has challenged the sovereignty of the nation state

Globalisation refers to the break-down of distinct barriers between nation-states

Globalisation and the state

Globalisation can be seen to have three key aspects:

Economic globalisation – the growth of Transnational Corporations like Ford, Nestle, Nike show how nation-states depend on global businesses to employ their citizens

Globalisation and the state

Political globalisation – nation-states are being part of international unions e.g. UN, NATO

Cultural globalisation – Real-time communications have allowed TNC to operate 24/7

Globalisation and the state

The developments mentioned in the previous slide, mean for some commentators that the nation-state is too small

Take Tesco it’s fast becoming a global business with stores in many European countries

Because of this Tesco can have a direct influence on the employment rates and shopping patterns of these countries which the host nation-state has very little influence over

Globalisation and the state

Ulrich Beck, says the above is because we’re entering a global risk society

What Beck meant was nation-states no longer have the power to deal with global issues on their own as they are too small

AIDS, global warming, terrorism are all issues that need to be dealt with as collective rather than individual nations

Globalisation and the state

On the other hand, nation-states other commentators argue are too big to deal with the consequences of globalisation

For Giddens globalisation means people are drawn to create new identities as a consequence of being immersed in larger states like the EU

So people focus on ethnic differences in order to create a new identity

Future of nation-states

Giddens sees the power of nation-states diminishing

Giddens sees the need for the creation of ‘global governance’ in order to all collective management of global problems like AIDS, human rights, global warming and terrorism

For David Held worries about globalisation undermining democracy as power shifts to transnational companies