The state still matters: but it may no longer do the things it did

In this section we turn to the issue of the role that the state plays in contem­porary society. Many have argued that the nation state has been hollowed out by a series of related processes.

Clearly, this volume identifies changes within economic, political and social processes which have affected the state. David Marsh and Nicki Smith and Nicky Hothi analyse the ways in which changes, perceived and actual, in the global economy, probably more accurately characterized as internation­alisation than globalization, have impacted upon the autonomy and sovereignty of the state. Similarly, George Sorensen identifies a change from a modern to a postmodern state. The modern state was based upon a community of people with linguistic, cultural and historical bonds, and as such a common identity, a national government, which was centralized, if democratic, and a primarily domestic economy. In contrast, in the post­modern state government is more differentiated and multi-level, identities are more complex, with both subnational (often ethnic) and supranational elements (European identity or Islamic identity), and the economic system is increasingly international. At the same time, Guy Peters and Jon Pierre discuss the putative move from government to governance, marked by a move towards a multi-level governance based on networks, rather than hierarchy or markets (a distinction we discuss at more length below).

The key point here however, is that, while each of these contributions acknowledges that the processes they identify have, to an extent, changed the role of the state, none see this as necessarily indicating a decline in the state’s role. Rather, they argue that any view that the importance and centrality of the state is being eroded is simplistic. So, while globalization, whether seen in material or ideational terms, may have transformed the context in which the state operates, it has not rendered it less important, because the state remains a crucial actor in these globalizing processes. Similarly, while postmodern states, if such they be, may have lost some direct control over policy formulation and implementation, they retain crucial legitimating and co-ordinating roles. Consequently, modern governance involves the state in more complex relationships with other governmental and societal actors, but it doesn’t inevitably reduce its role or its power. Crucially then, the relationship between state and societal, or public and private, actors should not be conceived in zero-sum terms, with one ‘side’ exercising power at the expense of the other.

Another way of approaching these issues is to invoke the distinction between networks, hierarchies and markets as modes of governance (Williamson 1985; Thompson etal. 1991). Hierarchy as a mode of govern­ance involves close links (a strong coupling) between the public and the private sphere, with centralized control exercised by government. In contrast, the market involves a more heterogeneous mode of governance in which there is no structural coupling, with outcomes the result of market interactions between public and private actors without the state performing any co-ordinating role. For many, given that hierarchical modes of govern­ance increasingly seem outdated and that there is growing dissatisfaction with market-led solutions, networks are seen as an increasingly attractive, and increasingly common, mode of governance (Thompson 2003).