The connection to theories: interpretations of state transformation

It has already been indicated that there are different interpretations of what is going on as regards state transformation. This debate is not merely about empirical disagreement.

There are three main ways of looking at states and power; the first is state-centric; it is connected to elitism in political science and the realist tradition in IR (International Relations). The second springs from the pluralist or liberal tradition in political thought; the third, which I shall call the critical view - is linked to theories inspired by IPE (International Political Economy), by neo-Marxism (see Chapter 4) and by historical sociology. The ‘state-centric’ view is often connected to the realist approach while ‘retreat’ scholars frequently draw on the liberal tradition. ‘Transformation’ scholars, finally, typically subscribe to the critical view but there are excep­tions and by no means all scholars are easily classified in this way. There is no room here for a comprehensive introduction to theories on the state (for an overview, see Chapters 1-3). I merely want to demonstrate how theories help persuade scholars to take certain views on state transformation.

State-centric analysis as represented by realism (Morgenthau 1966; Waltz 1979; for an overview see Jackson and Sorensen 2003) simply assumes that the international system is a system of sovereign states. States control the means of violence; they set the rules of the game for all other actors, including corporations, individuals and organizations. States jealously guard their freedom and autonomy; for that reason there is no world government and there never will be.

Against this background, it is easy to understand why state-centric real­ists are sceptical faced with the idea about states in retreat.

Pluralists or liberals have a different view of states and power. The liberal starting point is the individual citizen; states are not primarily concentrations or instruments of power; they are caretakers of the rule of law and the rights of citizens to life, liberty and property. From the begin­ning, therefore, individuals and groups in civil society are the central focus for liberals. They argue that transnational relations - that is, relations across border between individuals and groups (‘non-state actors’) - have become of increasing importance in recent decades. That is one major reason for the ‘erosion...of state and governmental power’ (Rosenau 1993: 274).

The state was never a strong, unitary, coherent and autonomous actor for liberals; it was always a guardian of individuals and groups in civil society and therefore strongly influenced by these ‘non-state actors’. In the liberal view, power is distributed among many actors across a vast range of issue areas; and states are increasingly under pressure form the transna­tional relations conducted by individuals and groups. That is the basis for the ‘retreat of the state’ view supported by many liberals.

The critical view, finally, recognizes the existence of a system of sover­eign states based on territory, population and government.

The critical view perceives the state - market connection as an evolving relationship of interdependence in which each side needs (and benefits from) the other. At the same time, states and markets are sources of polit­ical and economic power and different kinds of balances between them are possible. That leads towards a ‘transformation’ view where states are neither ‘winning’ nor ‘losing’ but where the relative power position of states (and other actors) may change over time and across issues.

None of these different theoretical views are inherently right or wrong. They are different grips on a complex reality; each of them is the starting point for an analysis that throws light on some aspects of that reality and leaves other aspects in the dark. In one sense they are like different games. Each may be useful for certain analytical purposes and less useful for others. Just as we respect that people want to play different games, we must respect the individual merits of each theoretical perspective on its own terms.

At the same time, all three theories have something to say about states and power and how the power of states develops over time.

Yet I am not trying to persuade the reader to adopt the critical view and reject the two others. The intention is merely to emphasize how different theoretical starting points compel us to look at the real world in rather different ways.

Let me now summarize the changes in statehood identified above and try to get an overall grip on what is happening to the state.