The active role of the state

In terms of arguments that the autonomy of the state is increasingly constrained by external economic factors, the picture is a little more complex. Our view would be that, whilst there are changes to the global economic system occurring, states do not simply respond to these changes.

Rather, as some authors in this collection have argued, the reaction of states to changes in the economy, in terms of policy responses and institutional reconfiguration, is heavily mediated by the ideas which state actors hold about the environment in which they exist. As such, the process of globalization, we would contend, does not mandate a singular response from the state. The particular ways in which the state responds to these pressures is heavily mediated through an ideational filter. So, whilst some states may undertake actions which seem to erode their power and authority, this is their decision, not a response to some structured necessity. Indeed, although there is a large literature on state convergence (see Hay 2000; Garrett 1998), few would argue that the specific ways in which states adapt to economic changes are the result of structural imperatives. States are under pressure to change and adapt, and always have been. However, the specific ways in which the state responds to these challenges still predominantly reflects decisions made by state actors.

A curious feature of the debates about the hollowing out of the state is that it seems to be a process without agents. The state, we are told, is losing power and authority upwards to supranational institutions, sideways to the private sphere and downwards to increased demands for localism and devolved government. Yet, these changes are apparently occurring without anybody doing anything. Globalization is frequently appealed to as an external (structural) constraint. State inefficiency inexorably leads to greater involvement of the private sphere and the diversity of modern nation states requires an ever greater devolution of power and decision making to the periphery.

However, these are not processes without agents. As has briefly been discussed above, the changes associated with globalization are taken by states, on the basis of particular understandings of what is occurring, and crucially, different states take different decisions on such matters.

The discussion of globalization by Marsh, Smith and Hothi clearly confirms this point. Much of the literature on globalization treats it as a process that acts as a structural constraint upon the state. However, the state has been a key actor in creating and sustaining the process. So, states have consistently followed policies, notably the liberalization of tariffs, markets and finance, which have facilitated the processes of globalization. Most importantly, Marsh, Smith and Hothi suggest that, in doing so, the UK New Labour government may be using the threat of globalization and the associated logic of no alternative (that is, the argument that globalization means there is no alternative but to pursue neo-liberal economic policies) as a means of party control, suppressing support for traditional social democratic policies. To the extent that this is true, globalization is used to facilitate the pursuit of policies New Labour wants to pursue; it is not a constraint.

It is clear then that the decisions taken by states which seem to weaken their power and influence can have favourable and useful consequences. For example, the decision by the Labour government in Britain to grant independence to the Bank of England as soon as it came to power in 1997 seemed to have divested the state of a number of what were hitherto seen as crucial instruments of economic management, thus reducing its autonomy. However, it could be argued that this empowered the state, at least in political terms. The state is now no longer responsible for fiscal policy and hence cannot be blamed for it, but it can, as the Labour government has done, bask in the glow of successful fiscal policy, claiming to preside over unparalleled economic stability and prosperity.

It is also perfectly possible to see the new localism in the UK, where the central state sets targets which local services are expected to deliver on, and which is sometimes seen as an aspect of the hollowing out of the state, in precisely the same terms. Local government has more responsibility and takes the criticism if central government policies are not effectively delivered. Certainly, in our view it is too simplistic to see the state as a victim of structural processes which reduce its power. The state, as calculating agent is heavily implicated in these processes, sometimes for deeply political reasons.

It is also crucial to emphasize that different states are more or less constrained by global pressures. For example, a developing country may well have limited room for manoeuvre if an IMF loan is made dependent on economic liberalization. In contrast, the United States finds it easy to resist international pressure to sign up to the Kyoto climate agreement. As such, the decline in the autonomy of the state is differentially experienced and, consequently, we may not be witnessing a decline of the state per se, but, rather, a widening of the asymmetries of power between states.

<< | >>

↑

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

The active role of the state

More on the topic The active role of the state: