From coercion to consent

Our argument here is that the stress in much literature on the state on its control over legitimate coercion is misguided in a period where rule depends much more heavily on consent than it did.

In our view, while the role of the state may be changing, such change does not translate straightforwardly into decline or diminishment. Indeed, it may be the case that, as modes of governance are changing, what is occurring is not a weakening in the power of the state but a change in the ways in which it exerts that power. The discussion of the distinction between hierarchies, markets and networks above suggests we may see this in terms of a shift from the state exerting power through coercion, to state acting as a co-ordinator or facilitator. This marks a departure from a Weberian, or neo-Weberian conception of the state which defines the state in terms of a dedicated personnel enjoying a monopoly of legitimate force. Certainly, historically, states, or state actors, exercised centralized power which was, in the last instance, backed by their legitimate monopoly control over coercive power - of course, to many theorists, particularly Marxists and elitists, the actions of these actors forwarded particular interests within society. Consequently, initially at least, hierarchy as a mode of governance rested, to a large extent, on this control. Obviously, while the nation state still, in most senses, enjoys that monopoly, it is much less important, and certainly much less obvious. Modern rule is based more on consent, than on coercion; although, of course, some would argue that such consent is manufactured or ‘false’. To put it another way, the legitimacy of the increasingly complex contemporary state, in which networks play a more important role, depends on the state acting as a co-ordinator or facil­itator.

Of course, these types of argument should not be pushed too far. The state has not become one actor amongst many. There are a number of reasons for continuing to afford the state a special position in analyses of social, economic and political processes. The fact that the state seems to make greater use of non-state actors should not obscure the fact that it is the decision of the state as to which areas to involve non-state actors in delivery, implementation or design of policy. There may be perceived pressures for non-state solutions to certain areas or issues, but it remains the decision of state actors whether to use public institutions or to make use of private sector resources. Such decisions are, and are likely to remain, contentious political decisions, reflecting different sets of ideas.