<<
>>

Beyond the state?

A final challenge to the theory of the state has come from a rather unexpected source - the challenge to the state itself. In recent years the value of state theory has come under attack from those who reject neither its sophistication nor the significance of the insights it has generated.

What they do reject, however, is its contemporary relevance. The state, they argue, in an era of globalization and internationalization, financial integration and capital mobility is rapidly becoming obsolete. It is becoming (if it has not already become) an anachronism: too small to deal with the big problems which

are now increasingly projected on an international or global stage and too clumsy to deal with the small problems which are increasingly displaced to the local level. It is difficult to deny the appeal of such an argument. Yet it is important to treat some of the often heroic claims made about the contemporary crisis of the nation-state with a degree of caution and some scepticism. First, globalization is not a particularly novel phenomenon. Indeed it can be traced at least as far back as the imperial age. The mode of globalization has certainly changed with time, but the mere presence of globalizing forces need not herald the demise of the state form. It is certainly true that financial integration, heightened capital mobility, the emergence of regional trading blocs and the proliferation of supra-national regulatory bodies significantly alter the context (economic and political) within which states operate, and may indeed be reflected in the changing form and function of the state. Yet this is in no sense to pronounce the death of the state. In all likelihood people will continue to live, as they do now, in territorially-bounded communities governed primarily by state institutions on which they continue to confer legitimacy, and which they continue to regard as responsible in the first instance for the social and economic context in which they find themselves. As this suggests, global­ization may well pose a challenge to the nation-state, but it is a challenge that it has not thus far proved incapable of responding to. The nature of that response, not as yet associated with any significant scaling back or retrenchment of its activities, defines the contemporary agenda for state theorists. On all the available evidence, then, rumours of the death of the state and of the demise of state theory would, thankfully, seem greatly exaggerated.

<< | >>
Source: Hay Colin, Lister Michael, Marsh David (eds.). The State: Theories and Issues. Palgrave,2005. — 336 p.. 2005

More on the topic Beyond the state?:

  1. The so-called ‘new institutionalism’ is a relatively recent addition to the pantheon of theories of the state and, like some of the other perspectives considered in this volume, it is by no means only a theory of the state
  2. Like Henry Higgins who, through his work changed the object of his studies into something other than what it was, the purpose of the Marxist theory of the state is not just to understand the capitalist state but to aid in its destruction. (Wolfe 1974: 131)
  3. What is the state?
  4. The concept of the state
  5. Marxism and the state
  6. SANCTION AND THE STATE
  7. The state as institutional contextualization
  8. The genealogy of the concept of the state
  9. The state and problems of legitimacy
  10. Green critiques of the state
  11. The Weberian definition of the modern state