Statism and institutionalism.· is there more focus on the state?
In one sense, this book is based on the view that the state remains important and this is an issue that we return to in the next section. Actually, among the positions considered here, there are somewhat contradictory views on the role and importance of the state.
So, in different ways, Marxism and pluralism have, more recently, paid more attention to the independent role of the state. In Marxism, as Hay shows, the move away from economism led to a focus on the relative autonomy of the capitalist state; indeed, in more recent times, both Jessop and Block have argued that the state can be completely autonomous from the ruling, capitalist, class. Of course most pluralists, tend to talk of the government rather than the state. Nevertheless, some like Nordlinger (1981) see modern pluralism as characterized by conflict between sections of government and their interest groups (for example, a Ministry of Agriculture and farmers’ groups) and other sections of government and their interest groups (for example, a Ministry of Health and doctors’ groups) over an area of policy (in this case perhaps diet and health). Pluralism is again retained, because no one interest wins consistently across time and space.Of course, in some ways the rise of new institutionalism best reflects the renewed interest in the state. As Schmidt shows, while there are significant differences between the types of new institutionalism, all the types see the state and its institutions as a crucial focus of study, although not necessarily as the power centre.
In contrast, other theoretical positions are less focused on the state, or in the case of public choice theory see the role of the state as largely malign. Once again, it is poststructuralism that most challenges other ideas about the role of the state. As Finlayson and Martin argue, to the poststructuralist most other approaches treat power as a tool possessed and exercised by the state (although perhaps exercised in the interests of particular sections of society; capitalists, men etc.).
However, to the poststructuralists power is a process, not a tool. It is dispersed throughout society and enshrined in state institutions and practices. These practices are complex and plural; they do not simply reflect or promote one set of interests, but neither is there pluralism. As such, the state is complex and needs to be disaggregated into various institutions and practices. It is a site, or a series of sites, in which competing discourses are played out. Consequently, it is characterized by change, instability and conflict. Overall, from this perspective, plurality is the key feature of both power and the state. In this position, the state and its institutions and practices may be an important focus of study, but it doesn’t exercise power and isn’t necessarily even one of the main loci of power.At the same time, other positions also question the necessary primacy of the state as a locus of power or a focus of study. This is clearly reflected in the move towards talking of governance, rather than government, which is seen in much modern elitism and pluralism and among some new institutionalists. The argument here is that the state has been hollowed out, upwards, in the UK by power shifting to the EU, sideways, by the growth of executive agencies and private-public partnerships, and downwards, by devolution and the growth of powerful policy networks. In this view, contemporary societal developments, often characterized as a move from a modern towards a postmodern society - e.g. globalization; increasingly complex social identities and the growing importance of social divisions based on consumption, rather than production, locations, as well as the decline of the nation state - all mean that analyses and explanations which focus on the state are misguided.
Overall, while there has been a renewed interest in the state in Marxism, pluralism and new institutionalism, such a focus has been challenged by other positions. Here again, the answer may be that we need to reject the dualism, which leads to a privileging of either the state or civil society. Rather, the focus should be very directly on the relationship between the state and civil society, not on privileging either.
More on the topic Statism and institutionalism.· is there more focus on the state?:
- 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
- Historical institutionalism
- From the ‘old institutionalism' to the new institutionalism'
- Discursive institutionalism
- Sociological institutionalism
- Rational choice institutionalism
- Chapter 5 Institutionalism
- 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)
- Greening the state?
- What would a more sophisticated conceptualization of the state look like?
- The role of the state: challenges and responses
- What is the state?
- The concept of the state
- As previous chapters have demonstrated, ‘the state’ is an elusive and contested concept.