The State

A crucial concept to analysis as the state is a KEY ACTOR in political science - represents the 'locus of power'; the apparatus that enables the functioning of society - it is a SOCIAL SYSTEM that may be subject to domination by certain groups - pluralism?

Hoffmann and Graham suggest the state is IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE, however Weber describes the operating feature - the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force'

3 key concepts to the state (McAuley): - set of institutions (to govern); - geographical territory (to control), and; - a monopoly on power - all of this contributes to generate SOVEREIGNTY - however, this requires international recognition (Held) - eventually, a state gains NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Influence of the state - even if it is a minimal, 'nightwatchman' state, it INFLUENCES EVERYONE in some way and plays a major role in life - Burnham - "the organisation of domination" - this is a pejorative view, but a major role to play

CONCEPTIONS OF STATE: - nightwatchman (New Right, minimal state); - contractarian (protects citizens - liberal, Locke, Rousseau); - developmental (corporatist) - suggests that the STATE IS DEFINED BY ITS LEVEL OF INTERVENTION

The state aims to SERVE THE PEOPLE, however often the state becomes overly powerful on its own, and is not held accountable - may have the state as an ORGANISM which grows (romantic view), or ultimately as an OPPRESSOR (Marxist view)

- Rules for the operation of the state - a unique + supreme organisation warranting loyalty towards it - has jurisdiction over the territory, is legally supreme, is self-sovereign and has broad assocations (Raphael) - this LEGAL AUTHORITY is crucial, as without this the state cannot realistically enforce its policies

- State + nationalism - a 'dirty word'? The modern conception is a 'nation-state', however this has implications economically, militarily and bureaucratically - a massively powerful body - in the modern period, these functions have become linked to citizenship and nationalism - trying to promote certain decisions being taken

- Globalisation - does this depoliticise the state and cause negative reaction? Do we need a 'new Leviathan'?

FEATURES: - apparatus; - territory; - bureaucracy; - legal system; - authority; - international recognition; - decision making power; - monopoly on violence

Pluralism - idea that the state is decentralised and power is held in various different areas simultaneously (a 'polyarchy') - do not like the concept of the 'state' - too centralised and does not reflect the competition between groups (Schumpeter) - should be 'political system' - Easton

- A 'liberal' view of the state - politicians seen as 'dealers in votes' encouraging debate and participation within a 'limited state' - the polyarchy facilitates this; represents non-cumulative power and ensures that NO GROUP CAN DOMINATE - instead, uses democracy to compromise and reach consensus on issues - DEBATE CENTRAL to a pluralist society - power see an fragmented and IN BALANCE within the netural state framework

PLURALIST MODELS: WEATHERVANE - state is seen as a representative of the most popular group; victors of deliberation control the state democratically - they 'blow the state' in their direction

NETURAL - state is 'actively netural' - becomes an impartial umpire of the interests and discussions of the groups - consults to discover the public interest, and seeks to raise this - a 'mediator, balancer and harmoniser' (Dunleavy + O'Leary); state as the ARENA for this

BROKER - Dahl - plural elitism - the bureaucracy promoting their own interests - iron triangles, overload thesis - this is incrementalism - a more Machiavellian view

Elite theory states that power is in the hands of a SELECT GROUP that take all the key decisions and determine where the state is headed - only one section holding power

MOSCA - the elite is 'best suited' and has a 'natural aptitude' for leadership - political leadership is based on your life experiences, meaning there are elite leaders for a reason - suggests a more meritocratic elite theory

PARETO - elites have power so they can pursue their OWN INTERESTS and organise and fulfil their goals - views of 'cunning foxes' and 'brave lions' - a more psychologial and pejorative view

MICHELS - elites exercise the most power and form the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy' - elites TAKE OVER THE STATE and seek to pursue their own personal interests - most pejorative

MODERN - WRIGHT MILLS - there exists a large 'poewr elite' which is part of and controls the state - they take decisions, make decisions and form leadership groups; BOTTOMORE - a 'political elite', but also a wider 'political class' - similar views, but only the elite exercise power - the class is the 'elite in waiting' - both exercise 2nd face of power

SEPARATE FROM MARXIST THEORY - non-economic and not centred around class struggle

Marxists believe that the interests of the RULING CLASS dominates the state - state as a 'bourgeois form of organisation (Marx) - seek to reinforce capitalism as a SUPERSTRUCTURE and faciliate the 'organisation of domination' - key fragmentations however:

INSTRUMENTALISM - state is a 'committee of the affairs of the bourgeoisie' and protects bourgeois interests - an instrument of bourgeois oppression; Lenin - 'a special oppressive force'; argues that the state will be COERCIVE - this reflects Gramsican 'hegemony' and further economic oppression - Miliband - supports this view - state = 'domination' of society

STRUCTURALISM - state is a 'capitalist state', but the state unifies the worker group and capitalist bourgeois group; state activity determined by social structure; for example, Poulantzas - workers become citizens, bourgeois are comforted and become richer - state REINFORCES THIS - 'relative autonomy' for all - not pro-bourgeoisie, only pro-capitalism

CRITICISMS: Miliband - are the bourgeoisie as unified as he suggests? (Coates) - far too pejorative and hard to find empirical evidence to prove Miliband's view - Poulantzas much more understandable

- FRACTIONAL MODEL - state representing a 'section of hegemonic capital' ie finance - dominated by special interest

CORPORATISTS - hierarchial organisation of interests, which are controlled by the state - for example, Mussolini and worker syndicates; only the elite in big gropus can discuss with the state, and Mussolini appointed these anyway - Middlemas - relevant to UK and unions in 1975; DILEMMA as this promotes economic growth but reduces autonomy of workers

FOUCAULT - power = knowledge, and discourse reflects and produces new power structures - types are generated, but power is decentralised within these - therefore, no mention of a 'centralised state'

PLURALIST CRITICS: - devalues public interest; - BROKER - what of participation in this model

ELITE CRITICS: - what about the moral validity of elitism? Is it OK for this to happen?

MARXISMT: - instrumentalism too cynical, but; - structuralist reifies class structure, which is broken - TOO FRAGMENTED

IS THE STATE LOSING POWER? Jessop - YES - 'hollowing out' of state due to GLOBALISATION - leads to the weakening of sovereignty and lack of control... BUT: 1) Exaggeration (most stuff is controlled); 2) States never had much control, 3) Rise of nationalism

Hoffmann + Graham; Weber - definitions of state

Held - critical of sovereignty

Burnham; Marx; Engles; Lenin; Poulantzas; Miliband; Gramsci - Marxist view

Coates - critical of Miliband's view

Coleridge - state as an organism; romantic

McAuley - textbook

Easton; Dahl; Schumpeter - pluralist

Machiavelli; Mosca; Pareto; Michels; Wright Mills; Bottomore - elite view

Middlemas - corporatism

Foucault - postmodernist

Jessop - 'hollowing out of state' - is the state losing power?