Structure of the book

The volume begins with reappraisals of the classical triumvirate of pluralism, elitism and Marxism. In his chapter on pluralism, Martin Smith emphasizes that pluralism has been and in many ways continues to be a massively influential perspective in political analysis generally, and state theory in particular.

In identifying the developments in pluralist thought, from the growing dominance of American pluralism, through neo-pluralist reformulations to the contemporary reinvigoration of pluralist thought through radical democracy and multiculturalism, the chapter points to both contemporary developments in pluralist thought and the stable core at the heart of such pluralist approaches. That core is characterized by the continued emphasis upon the centrality of groups, a belief in limiting the power of the state and the understanding of power as diffuse. The chapter also highlights a continuing and persistent weaknesses of the theory, namely its failure to problematize the state and its associated tendency to see it in rather neutral terms. Paraxodically, then, whilst invariably seen to provide the central reference point in the theory of the state and a point of departure for all others, pluralism’s conception of the state is itself curiously under-theorized.

Mark Evans, in his chapter on elitism, similarly seeks to explore how the core of elite theory has developed. He identifies a series of core propositions - that rulers form a cohesive group, selected on the basis of their access to economic, political or ideological resources, are based within a territory, and are closed off from those who are ruled. Partly in response to theoretical and empirical criticism, and partly due to contemporary changes in global political and economic structures, Evans suggests that these propositions have altered. Contemporary political elites are engaged - or seen, by elite theorists, to be engaged - in competition with one another, on the basis of a broader range of resources.

Whilst such elites may well be territorially based, invariably they form linkages with other global elites. Again emphasizing contemporary developments, the chapter concludes by examining theories which seek to analyse the form and function of elites at different levels of governance.

Colin Hay’s chapter on Marxist theories of the state builds upon the oft-cited truism that Marx did not develop a coherent and systematic theory of the state himself. He traces the development of Marxist state theory from the fragments of Marx’s reflections on the state, through the move away from economism initiated by Gramsci, via the structuralism vs intentionalism debate, to the contemporary expressions of Block and Jessop. The chapter, developing the theme of variation within as well as between paradigmatic approaches to the state, concludes by arguing that despite claims that both the state and Marxism are in decline, the Marxist approach still has much to offer.

The following two chapters on public choice theory and institutionalism represent some of the major debates within the contemporary political science mainstream. As Andrew Hindmoor suggests, public choice theory sees the state in terms of failure. Utilizing economic methods and building primarily from the assumption that individuals are self-interested utility maximizers, public choice theorists argue that the notion of the state acting as the guardian of the public interest is a myth, as state actors (as all individuals) rationally pursue their self-interest. The chapter outlines a number of examples of the ways in which public choice theorists have suggested that such self-interested actions from state actors leads to state failure. The new institutionalism can perhaps be seen as a reaction both to the assumptions of public choice theory and to the behaviouralist revolution of the 1960s. It has sought to rehabilitate the state, being in some sense a continuation of the attempt in the 1980s to ‘bring the state back into’ political analysis.

As Vivien Schmidt argues, rather than reducing political action to its individual parts, it has sought to analyse the collective element of political action. There are, of course, a diverse range of new institutionalisms to which the chapter attends: rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, sociological institutionalism and discursive institutionalism. These vary in quite how they approach this insight, but all share a concern with how institutions modify individual action - be that through incentive structures, historical legacies, or cultural and/or discursive norms. Curiously, though, as Schmidt points out, the state as a concept is quiet or absent from much new institutionalist scholarship - the ghost at the feast. Thus whilst what new institutionalists most frequently mean by an institution is a state institutions, it is in the rather more generic language of institutions, rather than the state, that their analyses are framed. This perhaps reflects the ‘success’ of public choice theorists’ accounts of the failure of the state.

The book then moves on to consider some perspectives on the state which (currently) lie outside of the mainstream. These present a significant series of challenges to more conventional approaches whilst providing new tools with which to examine the state. In her chapter on feminism, Johanna Kantola points out that feminism has long been marked by an ambiguous position towards the state. Echoing other chapters, the diversity of feminist perspectives on the state is emphasized. The chapter points to the ‘in’ and ‘out’ dichotomy, where the emancipatory potential of the state is debated, primarily between those who view the state as essentially neutral and those who see it as essentially patriarchal. Yet a range of feminist authors have sought to transcend this rather stark distinction including those in the Nordic countries. Such authors see differences between state processes and outcomes for women, primarily in terms of differences in social rights.

Poststructuralist feminists have rejected totalizing narratives on the state and seek instead to point to its differentiated nature. As this suggests, as feminist state theory has developed it has increasingly moved from questioning what the state is to a focus on what the state does.

Green theorists, like their feminist counterparts, have had a somewhat ambiguous position on the state. Yet Matthew Paterson, Peter Doran and John Barry argue that this has altered as green theorists have sought to engage with the underlying assumptions and practices associated with unsustainable development. They go on to outline a range of green criticisms of the state, which focus on why and how the modern state produces, reproduces and reinforces ecologically unsustainable dynamics. Yet the authors reject the eco-anarchistic view that the state is always and everywhere unreformable. The chapter goes on to consider how theorists have sought to ‘green’ the state, placing the emphasis for real change upon civil society, and, echoing developments in other theories, upon a move from totalising narratives of the state.

The final chapter in this section of the book presents the most significant challenge to traditional theorizing on the state. The aim of poststructuralism, Alan Finlayson and James Martin argue, is to investigate political language and discourse, to garner something of its structure, rules and how they have been institutionalized, in order to open up what has been excluded and, in so doing, to make possible alternatives. In terms of the state, the chapter emphasizes how poststructuralism questions the state itself, arguing that the fixing or definition of the state is an inherently political activity. The state is therefore an outcome of politics rather than something with which to explain politics. The work of Foucault on governmentality and his analysis of how power is dispersed throughout society emphasizes that the state and government are not contained in one locus but, rather, range across power/knowledge networks.

Many of the chapters mapping and analysing existing theories of the state make reference to how such perspectives have evolved in light of, and in response to, contemporary social, political and particularly economic changes. The second section of the book examines some of these changes and how they have and might impact upon the study of the state. In particular, it seems that the Weberian, or neo-Weberian view of the state as exerting a monopoly of authority through dedicated state actors, is increasingly challenged. However, all the chapters caution against simple arguments of the decline of the state; indeed, each argues for its continuing centrality.

Nicola Hothi, David Marsh and Nicola Smith examine how globalization has impacted upon the state. Globalization, it is widely claimed, has served to undermine the nation state. In an increasingly interconnected world, what the state can do has become more and more circumscribed, it is often claimed. However, after reviewing some more critical strands of the literature on globalization, it is noted that whilst there may be changes taking place in the global economy, the impact of these is mediated by the economic and political-institutional structure that pertains in particular contexts. The outcomes of the process of globalization are, then, very uneven. This, in turn, entails a rejection of the kind of totalizing narratives about globalization’s inevitable consequences that have tended to dominate discussion.

The impact of globalization upon the capacities of the nation state receives further analysis in Georg Sorensen’s chapter on the transformation of the state. His chapter reviews debates between those who see the state as in retreat, those who see the state remaining strong, and a third, synthesizing position, which suggests that states have changed and lost some influence and autonomy, yet simultaneously have been strengthened in other respects. Sorensen then goes on to consider the transformation of the state in the key areas of the economy and polity and with respect to the key concepts of community and sovereignty, suggesting that we are witnessing a change from what he terms the modern to the postmodern state.

He also usefully reminds us that positions on the transformation of the state are heavily influenced by the different theories of the state which inform them.

The transformation of the state is widely held to have reduced the role of state actors, and simultaneously, to have enhanced the role of societal actors. This change is often captured in terms of the shift from government to governance. B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre in their chapter on governance, government and the state, however, suggest that what is happening is a shift in the centrality of government in governance and how government operates within this new arrangement. They argue for the analytic priority of the state and its continued importance, before analysing the role of state institutions in governance. They go on to argue that the state has adapted and altered to a different mode of governance, one of blended, or dual sovereignty, utilizing different policy implementation tools and decentralization. Rather than reducing the role of the state in governance, these changes may represent a reassertion of its influence; the state exercising power in different ways.

The increasing prominence of private actors within the operation of the state provides the key focus for Matthew Flinder’s chapter on the boundaries of the state. He suggests that fragmentation and disaggregation mark the state and points to the potential dangers of viewing the state as a homogenous entity. The chapter goes on to examine the broader sphere of delegated or distributed public governance, the ‘grey zone’ of which public-private partnerships are an important aspect. Yet these debates clearly raise important issues concerning the role of private sector and the state and particularly, the potential limits to private sector involvement.

In the conclusion, we attempt to identify some of the common themes and concerns which arise in the preceding chapters. We return to the theme of convergence amongst theories of the state discussed in the first edition of Marsh and Stoker’s Theory and Methods (1995). In the conclusion, we revisit the issue, to examine if such a trend can be observed when considering a broader range of perspectives on the state. We suggest that whilst strong claims about convergence may be unwarranted, the disparate theories of the state reviewed in this volume do exhibit a series of common themes and concerns. Notable amongst these is the question of the continuing relevance of the state itself, both conceptually and substantively. In the conclusion, we review such arguments and discussions, and in keeping with the argument of other chapters, suggest that whilst the state may be subject to a range of pressures which may have altered its position and role, it remains a central focus for political analysis.

Structure of the book

More on the topic Structure of the book: