Introduction

A comprehensive debate about state transformation has been under way for some time (see for example Rosenau 1990; Camilleri and Falk 1992; Ohmae 1996; Strange 1996; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton 1999; Weiss 1998; Rosecrance 1999).

This chapter seeks to introduce the most important elements of the debate about the transformation of the state and to investigate how the main posi­tions taken are connected to major different theoretical views (see Sorensen 2004 for an in-depth treatment; some of what follows draws on that work). There are three central standpoints in the debate; they are characterized by different views on what is happening to the state (Sorensen 2004; see also Held McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton 1999). One view can be called the ‘retreat of the state’ view; it argues that the changes taking place are a serious threat to the power and autonomy of the state. Some even argue that the changes herald an end to the sovereign state as we know it.

The third view, finally, focuses on state transformation. It argues that both the ‘retreat’ and the ‘state-centric’ stance provide insights, but also contain serious shortcomings. The insights concern the fact that whereas states have lost influence and autonomy in some areas, as indicated by the ‘retreat’ argument, they have also been strengthened in various respects, as emphasized by the ‘state-centric’ argument. The shortcomings are narrow definitions and lack of comprehensive analysis. Both of these views overly downplay the general process of change in sovereign statehood over time, leading to new strength in some areas and new weaknesses in others.

This more comprehensive view can be called transformationalist. Most scholars will probably say that they are transformationalists today, but the devil is in the detail: how much exactly has changed in which major areas and what does that mean for the overall standing of the state? Is it at all possible to generalize about these changes or is every sovereign state so unique that this is out of the question?

This chapter will argue that some general trends can be identified: we know that the old model of a territorially well-defined national state as of the mid­twentieth century doesn’t hold up. We are not entirely sure what is taking its place; that is the reason for the popularity of the imprecise ‘post-terminology’: the state is often claimed to be ‘post-national’, ‘post-industrial’, ‘post-sovereign’, etc. Still, it is possible to tease out some general ideas about what is happening.

The following sections look at the debate about state transformation in major areas: the economy; political changes; community; sovereignty. The various changes in statehood are then drawn together and it is suggested how they can be interpreted in terms of a new ideal type of (postmodern) state. A subsequent section establishes a link between state theory and the major positions in the debate about state transformation. It is shown how different theories about the state are compelled to view the changes taking place in a certain light. The theoretical views are therefore frequently potentially biased in their analysis of what is going on.

Before we begin, it should be noted that this whole debate about the transformation of the state contains a Eurocentric bias: it is concerned with the advanced liberal states in Europe, North America, and East Asia. There is no mentioning of the very weak states in the South, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa, or of the modernizing states in Asia and Latin America. Because it traces the debate, the present chapter also contains this Eurocentric or ‘Westerncentric’ bias.