This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Axtmann Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 25, No. 3, The Nation-State and Globalization: Changing Roles and Functions. Les États nations et la globalisation: Roles et fonctions en mutation (Jul., 2004), pp. 259-279 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601667 . Accessed: 16/09/2013 18:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.
This content downloaded from 220.127.116.11 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PoliticalScience Review(2004), Vol 25, No. 3, 259-279 International
The State of the State: The Model of the Modern State and its Contemporary Transformation
The first part of this article sketches the ideal-type of the territorially consolidated, sovereign nation-state. The second part discusses how the assumptions of "homogeneity," "unity," and "sovereignty" that underlie this ideal-type have become problematized over the past few decades. The moves toward a state form that institutionalizes polycentricity, heterogeneity, and plurality are discussed in the context of the conflict between nationalism and multiculturalism; the internationalization of the state; and geopolitical transformations. Methodologically, the article puts forward an argument in favor of a historically informed institutional analysis of state transformations.
Keywords: * Globalization * Governance * Sovereignty * State
For the past two centuries or so, the territorially consolidated, centralized, sovereign state has been the dominant paradigm in western political thought and western mainstream political science. It constituted the ideal of the well-ordered, western, modern political community. It was considered to be the model which any political community that strove toward modernity was expected to embrace. From the vantage point of the early 21st century, we are well placed to review this model and identify some of the significant transformations that it is undergoing as the new century gathers pace.
Key Concepts of the Modern State
(1) The TerritorialState and the Unitary Sovereign Will
In "pre-modern" Europe, political authority was shared between a wide variety of secular and religious institutions and individuals - between emperors, kings, princes and nobility, bishops, abbots and the papacy, guilds and cities, agrarian
DOI: 10.1177/0192512104043016 ? 2004 International Political Science Association SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
This content downloaded from 18.104.22.168 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
While the universalization of the nation-state norm contributed to the global spread of the interstate system.166. and rightfully.4 on Mon." The universalization of the nation-state norm went hand in hand with the "nationalization" of of found one expression in "the expectation culture. This political nationalism was complemented by the nationalization of culture in the pursuit of the creation of a national-societal identity. The modern state project aimed at replacing these overlapping and often contentious jurisdictions through the institutions of a centralized state. the modern territorial state came into existence as a differentiated ensemble of governmental institutions. "State sovereignty" meant that final authority within the political community lay with the state whose will legally. would they support foreign co-religionists in conflict with their states." Nationalism aimed "to overcome local ethno-cultural diversity and to produce standardized citizens whose loyalties to the nation [and its state] would be unchallenged by extra-societal allegiances" (Robertson. and whose will was thus "absolute" because it was not accountable to anyone but itself (Anderson. the notion of the "nation"-state came to stand for the idea that legitimate government could only be based upon the principle of national selfdetermination and that. The success of the modern nation-state in the past 200 years or so rested on the This content downloaded from 200. and resources in territorialized containments. 1996. The nation became the "unitary" body in which sovereignty resided. Cultural achievements became routinely claimed for "nations". 1996). so governments pledged. and thus the norm of particularism and localism. which ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe. "Governing" by the "sovereign" thus aimed to bring about the artful combination of space. 1990: 49). the idea of state sovereignty came to dominate political thought after the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648. This development uniqueness of identity" (Robertson. governments recognized each others' autonomy from external interference in the most important matter of the time: religious belief. Historically. No longer. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . to name but the most important ones. ultimately. at least ideally. Nationalism tightened the relation between "state" and "society.260 International PoliticalScience Review 25 (3) landlords. 1990). This theory claimed the supremacy of the government of any state over the people. resources. offices. over all other authorities within the territory it controlled. (the idea of) the cultural homogenization within the nation-state reinforced the cultural diversity of that system. Such "sovereignty" is premised on the occupation and possession of territory. internationally recognized boundary. and personnel that claims the exclusive power of authoritative political rule-making for a population within a continuous territory that has a clear. As a result of historical developments that spanned several centuries.76. culture became "nationalized" and "territorialized. The spatial dimension of territorial integrity manifests itself most clearly in the drawing up of territorial boundaries that separate the "inside" (the arena of the "domestic") from the "outside" (the arena of the "international"). This endeavor was legitimized by the theory of sovereignty. It created the precondition for the build-up of an effective system of control and supervision by the state over its population. Then. people. (2) The TerritorialState as a HomogeneousNation-State In the 19th century. and. and "bourgeois" merchants and artisans. state and nation ought to be identical with one another. commanded without being commanded by others. This agreement changed the balance of power between territorial authority and confessional groups in favor of the state. Axtmann.
In the course of the struggle for democratic rights. and regulating the physical movements of each. 13). to shape the national economy through state subsidies. and the cultural identity of its citizens. These regulatory endeavors contributed to the efforts of states to construct homogeneous nations. including state education. state-society relations were tightened and social relations were "caged" (Mann. and the people to have been defined as the sum of legally equal citizens. the elimination of internal trade barriers (such as tariffs). that every adult individual can be rightly This content downloaded from 200. states aimed to enforce order and authority internally. Thus.166. first. families. Through the monopolization of coercion domestically in the form of police forces. Ever more social groups found themselves compelled to strive to capture. and communities. uphold "national" interests vis-A-vis other states externally. The dominant understanding of "popular sovereignty" emerged out of a welding together of key ideas from nationalism and liberalism. as well as strengthen. (3) Democratization and Popular Sovereignty As a consequence of its activity. The preparation for war and the waging of war also allowed states to develop a strong appeal to the emotions and generate. and the imposition of import duties. states have also turned their attention increasingly to collecting and collating information about their citizens.76. at the same time as it was trying to shape society according to its own objectives. who may come and go and who not" in order to develop the capacity to "embrace" their own citizens in an attempt to extract from them the resources they needed to reproduce themselves over time (Torpey. The democratic idea centers upon the assumption of the capacity of individuals as citizens to govern themselves or.4 on Mon. and to expand the transport infrastructure as well as the communication infrastructure more generally. States endeavored to define "who belongs and who does not. the loyalty of their citizens to "their" state and their sense of belonging to "their" nation. the core institutions of the state in order to advance their own objectives. It became imperative for the state's subjects to gain rights as citizens in order to be better able to control its activities. States came to address the "social question" through developing and institutionalizing welfare policies. It is assumed. to determine for themselves their collective life. The development of the modern state depended upon effectively distinguishing between citizens or subjects and possible interlopers. 2000: 2. Sovereignty is understood to have been transferred from the (monarchical) ruler to the people. The state could no longer be evaded. In this process. its key concern is with curtailing the power of other individuals as well as of government to interfere with an individual's freedom. the state pulled society into its political space. the economic well-being. or influence. and lessen the negative effects of its policies on the life of individuals. and ensure the safety and security of their citizens more generally. share in the benefits it could bring. Liberalism aims to create a society in which conditions obtain that enable the individual to exercise her or his capacity of selfrule. the "subjects" of the state constituted themselves as "citizens" on whose sovereignty as a collective the power and legitimacy of the state was claimed to rest. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . to restore order through policing "deviancy" and improving moral life. Since the French Revolution.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 261 acceptance of its claim to be able to guarantee the physical security. In that respect. and externally through military forces. the modern state became the focal point for political mobilization. to put it differently. 1993: 61) within the national rather than the local and regional or transnational terrain.
retaining colonial (while frequently Furthermore. and represent its people authoritatively abroad. This "liberal" conceptualization of "popular sovereignty" is premised upon the acceptance of this dual notion of self-determination: the capacity of the individual to govern herself or himself and the capacity of individuals as citizens to govern themselves as a political community. Yet. and enforce. Jackson (1990) distinguished between "negative" and "positive" sovereignty. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . or the constituents. people's sovereignty is the basis upon which democratic decision-making takes place and "the people" are the addressees. the spread of the nation-state norm beyond its European homeland was less a matter of cultural "diffusion" and more the result of coercive imposition by hegemonic western powers as an integral part of colonialism and imperialism reaching back to the "age of discovery. 1990: This content downloaded from 200. The collective "self' whose own determination modem political liberalism aims to ensure in the democratic process is the politically organized nation. (4) The Global Spread of the Idea of the Nation-State In the 20th century." in order to possess citizenship rights. order within a clearly demarcated territory. the Charter of the United Nations and its support for the principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity confirmed the centrality of the European state ideal. In an important discussion. defend its territory and its people against external enemies. Democratic rule is exercised in the sovereign. 78). democratic polity. enjoys "positive" sovereignty: "the means which enables states to take advantage of their independence usually indicated by able and responsible rulers and productive and allegiant citizens" (Jackson. In a bounded territory. the sovereign nation-state did indeed come to be considered as the "ultimate power" that could impose. The territorially consolidated.4 on Mon. but also the capabilities and the wherewithal to provide political goods for its citizens.262 Review25 (3) PoliticalScience International considered to be. Individuals must be members of the state." The European state ideal and its key concept of sovereignty became a cornerstone of the global interstate system after the Second World War. Robert H. independent and formally equal states fundamentally rests. of those political decisions. must be its "nationals. "negative" sovereignty was a formal legal condition under which states enjoyed rights of nonintervention and a society of other international immunities. sufficiently well qualified to participate in the democratic process of governing the state to whose laws they are subjected. due to the global diffusion of the idea of the nation-state as an global norm and the extensive global legitimation of the institutionalized sovereign state as a primary feature of the world system. Upon this legal foundation. Popular sovereignty is thus understood as the self-rule of nationals in their capacity as citizens. It is further assumed that "among adults no persons are so definitely better qualified than others that they should be entrusted with the complete and final authority over the government of the state" (Dahl. which is clearly demarcated from other political communities. 76. The breakup of empires and colonial states in the period of decolonization created new states that were modeled on the European ideal borders as their territorial basis).76. territorially consolidated nation-state. is seen as rightly governing itself and determining its own future through the interplay between forces operating within its boundaries. Only in a sovereign state can the people's will command without being commanded by others. For Jackson.166. A state which possesses not only "negative" sovereignty. 1998: 75. in principle.
Their "sovereignty is derived not internally from empirical statehood but externally from the states-system whose members have evidently decided and are resolved that these jurisdictions shall not disappear. "Internal sovereignty" is a constitutional concept that pertains to the ultimate source of legitimate authority inside a state. Jackson's analytical distinctions allow us to suggest that the principle of "negative" sovereignty was universalized after 1945. for a democratic regime such a distinction is unintelligible. We can see that a "sovereign" right to ultimate authority and control does not imply an ability to exercise it. quite separate from either notion of "sovereignty.as we will see in the second part of this article. the state is constituted in terms of. due to a shift in international norms after the Second World War. Second. Jackson argued that. on the other hand. "through treaty violations. These "quasi-states" by definition are deficient and defective as apparatuses of power. State capacity is considered to be conceptually. and enjoy legally unlimited authority within its boundary. not that of "positive" sovereignty.' In his analysis. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . which in the 19th century had destroyed "real" states in Africa. and the capacity of the state for effective action. After 1945. a distinction between "internal sovereignty" and "capacity" would appear to be spurious. The quasi-state is upheld by an external covenant among sovereign states" (Jackson. military conquest and occupations. To sum up. In his reading. possess a single source of sovereignty. six characteristic requirements: First. now created "quasistates. Jackson's conceptualizations have recently been taken up by Kjell Goldmann (2001: 62-5). tying "popular sovereignty" to "state sovereignty" creates a major problem once the sovereignty of the state is being eroded . but through "juridical qualifications" ("juridical statehood"). where modern state-building has been successful. Europeans chipped away at the integrity of African political systems" (1999: 254)." on the one hand. it should rest This content downloaded from 200. Structured around the principle of "negative" sovereignty the interstate system since the second half of the 20th century has been populated (to use Jackson's terminology) by both "real" states and "quasi-states". and alliances with disaffected groups. the concept of "sovereignty" refers to a legal right. it should be territorially distinct. many of the newly founded states in the era of decolonization attained "statehood" not as a result of any evidence of capacity to rule ("empirical statehood").166. arguably.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 263 29). or what he calls "autonomy" (defined in terms of "action possibilities"). and the right not to be submitted to international norms and decisions to which it has not consented" (Goldmann.4 on Mon. who distinguishes between "sovereignty. 2001: 63). At the same time. The history of state formation can be analyzed as the protracted efforts of rulers and their staff to translate 'juridical" sovereignty into "empirical" sovereignty. the same western powers. What could it possibly mean for a "people" to possess "sovereign" rights while being incapable of acting upon these rights and turning its collective will into an actuality? On these grounds. Jackson disregarded the involvement of European powers in demolishing many viable African polities in the course of the 19th century in pursuit of geopolitical aggrandizement and economic profit.76. As Carolyn Warner has argued. and is expected to meet. and empirically." However. an international law concept. "External sovereignty" is. in a sense." Still. A state's external sovereignty "is a function of its recognition by other countries as being in legitimate possession of rights such as the right of non-interference by others in its internal affairs. 1990: 168-9) .
for example.. Parekh." state of which these various cultural communities are part. 2001. status. They demand groupdifferentiated rights. not differentially or through their membership of intermediate communities. Fourth . 2003. These demands are premised upon the belief that only by possessing and exercising these rights. These claims encompass demands for territorial autonomy (ranging in its form from federalism to devolution and to the acquisition of the status of "autonomous" region in either symmetrical or asymmetrical arrangements). Kymlicka. democratic. fourth. Kymlicka and Norman. Third. and immunities will it be possible for these communities to ensure the full and free development of their culture. . authority. Gagnon and Tully.166.264 25 (3) PoliticalScience International Review on a single set of constitutional principles and exhibit a singular and unambiguous identity. in ever more countries. if the state is federally constituted. and. carrying with them a more or less identical basket of rights and obligations. In this reading.76. . Our prevailing assumptions of common citizenship. 2000. [it] represents a homogeneous legal space within which its members move about freely. or immunities that go beyond the common rights of citizenship. 2000. A policy of assimilation. is therefore not an option (Barry. Fifth. and sovereignty of the state. powers. and for group-specific legal exemptions." or rather "multicommunal. 2002: 41-2). 2002. the territorially consolidated institution. decentralized institutional pattern emerging from this diversity would have to allow for the following: first. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . the economy.. I shall concentrate on some of those processes that have had an impact on the homogeneity. the political coordination of This content downloaded from 200. common identity. or family law. third. and social and political cohesion will be questioned. The question has arisen as to how these communities can coordinate their actions in areas of common concern or common interest. health. unity. a public debate on the matters communities have in common. state is a thoroughly homogenizing (u) The Modern State Transformed sovereign nation-state has faced increasing The territorially consolidated. and permanence of the "multicultural. or military security. for guaranteed representation in the political institutions of the larger society on the basis of quota systems favorable to the group and guaranteed veto powers over legislation and policies that centrally affect the respective minorities. . (1) Multiculturalism meetsNationalism Over the past few decades. Kelly. for self-government in certain key matters such as education. second. Sixth and finally. with regard to the environment. These demands raise the question of the very nature. members of the state are deemed to constitute a single and united people . histories. . all citizens are directly and identically related to the state. The much more fragmented.4 on Mon. . pressures over the past few decades. protection of legitimate powers to uphold autonomy. which aims to incorporate (or "melt") the "minority" into the dominant "majority" culture. 2000). and traditions have demanded recognition and support for their cultural identity. national and ethnic communities with distinct languages. Kukathas. communal self-government. 1995. powers. its component units should all enjoy the same rights and powers (Parekh. .
This multiculturalism. hybrid. most "stateless nations" embrace a form of "civic" or "post-ethnic" nationalism (such that group identities and membership are held to be fluid. a number of questions. on the other hand.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 265 the communities that keeps them part of one larger community. steer their interactions within the state territory (Cohen. a form of nationalism they tend to share with the "majority nation. Given that many of these communities have "transnational" political. but also. indigenous peoples raise the stakes in the intercultural dialog and challenge the assumption that political accommodation could be achieved within the institutional arrangements of liberal democracy (Kymlicka. Furthermore. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . then.76. 1995. there are two major differences between these two forms of "national minorities" in democratic states. However. Australia.4 on Mon. These issues have dominated the domestic politics of countries such as the United Kingdom (Scotland. Belgium. 2001. 1996). and New Zealand. descent-based. 2001). Indigenous demands raise. to an extent. To the extent that they do not (wish to) speak the political language of "liberal nationalism. their "place of origin. The net effect would appear to be a state that is limited to act as the coordinator of these political and cultural networks that are formed by a plethora of "cultural" communities. The indigenous claim to "sovereignty without secession" develops the idea of "nested" sovereignty. 2000). even more ambitiously. First. Hindess." and make demands for official apologies for past humiliations and atrocities. As "nations within" both "stateless nations" (such as the Catalans. and Northern Ireland). Wilson. groups. 2000). or the Quebecois) and indigenous peoples share the historical experience of an existence of complete and functioning societies on their historic homeland before being incorporated into a larger state. at stake is the need for reconfiguring political authority structures as well as the redefinition of democracy so that it should no longer be seen as an affair of a single body of citizens who together constitute a single people. and multiple).166. Kymlicka and Norman. Wales. but rather as an affair of citizens who constitute a plurality of diverse peoples. The past few decades have also witnessed the revival of ethnic nationalism in liberal democracies and secessionist threats by "internal" nationalities as well as the related recognition of the "multinational" character of most "nation"-states. and Canada (Quebec). and associations (see. we are also witnessing the political struggle of indigenous peoples in white settler states (such as Canada. economic. indigenous peoples in white settler societies were sometimes subjected to de facto "genocidal" policies and generally threatened in their very physical survival to an extent quite incomparable to anything experienced by most "stateless nations. are firmly (if not exclusively) mobilizing around a more static.. and self-governing peoples (Ivison et al. and cultural links with their "home country" and retain a sense of loyalty to. in the USA) for recognition as free. Spain. There are a number of structural reasons why nationalism is likely to remain a This content downloaded from 200. and culturally exclusive conception of group identity and membership. 2000)." Second. What does it mean to do justice to indigenous claims within the framework of a democratic and postcolonial state? Again." the state will find it difficult to facilitate or. the Scots. which demands the right of self-determination over those jurisdictions of direct relevance to the indigenous people while at the same time acknowledging a shared jurisdiction over certain lands and resources on the basis of mutual consent (Tully. for example. shares the political space with nationalism. and possibly derive even their identity from." Indigenous peoples. equal. however.
inter-civilizational. urging the transfer of power and legislative jurisdictions from central government to their own communities. these communities demand the right to govern themselves in certain key matters. rising prices. Fourth.166. First. After the end of the Cold War. the formation of regional blocs as part of the restructuring of the global geopolitical and geo-economic space allows "small" states to conceive of themselves as viable "independent" states within a larger formation. highknow-how economies. the geostrategic interests of the superpowers can no longer be defined as necessitating the perpetuation of the freezing of international borders on the grounds of security. Deindustrialization and unemployment. nationalism is structurally embedded in the changes in the interstate system. it is a key aspect of the contemporary stage of global interconnectedness that concrete societies situate themselves in the context of a world complex of societies. the criteria for societal change and conduct tend to become "matters of inter-societal. As a result of this global self-reflection. This content downloaded from 200.266 Review25 (3) Intenational PoliticalScience vibrant political force. or religious communities with distinct languages. demands for independence within states can be voiced more persuasively along nationalist lines. As a result. Should such policies not be forthcoming. as Hong Kong and Singapore demonstrate. traditions. for example. 1985: 237). 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Nationalist mobilization in pursuit of secession and independence is thus a potentially viable opt-out strategy. extreme nationalism and right-wing extremism may then become popular among those social classes and groups most adversely affected by the processes of economic globalization. cultural. and thus excluded from strategies of purchasing "privatized" services. It heightens the significance of the problem of societal order in relation to global order and is thus likely to give rise to a large number of political-ideological and religious movements with conflicting definitions of the location of their society in relation to the rest of the world and global circumstances as a whole. ethnic. the Czech Republic. (2) Some Structural Causesfor Societal Heterogeneity Western societies are increasingly understood to be "multicultural" societies in which distinct and cohesive communities demand the recognition and institutionalization of group rights in order to preserve their culturally and morally distinct way of life. the experience of the Baltic States. or else turn out to be ineffectual. global capitalism has brought in its wake regional disparities and economic dislocations. the restructuring of the global economy adds to the chances of "survival" of (at least some) smaller states: with the increasing importance of high-tech. and declining living standards have intensified the demands by citizens for protection and security. Third. Even "city-states" have thus a good chance of establishing themselves in the global system. and Slovenia demonstrated with regard to the European Union (EU). and more or less complete institutional structures. scale and space become less important in economic terms. They increasingly resemble an assemblage of national. In order to ensure the full and free development of their culture. citizens expect their governments to act on their behalf and in their interest. as.4 on Mon. Second. histories. A "nationalist" discourse and mobilization are situated within this structural configuration. and interdoctrinal interpretation and debate" (Robertson and Chirico. In this situation. Lastly. that they conceptualize themselves as part of a global order.76. inter-continental. Such a situating of societies may engender strains and even discontent within societies.
a widely shared view. and intervention in. of course. social and material reality. From a political perspective. [This is a] massively authoritative organization of what is to count as reality. storing. Through their very activities. such as the behavior of individuals regarding the environment. and rituals states "define. . AIDS). it is concretized in laws. or of religion and science was not the inevitable result of evolutionary processes. Furthermore. it "regulates" and "disciplines" social relationships in that territorial space over which it claims sovereignty. 1985: 197. the state must attempt to "convince" the people through dialog.. is a moral (or moralizing) agent. The modern state achieved societal integration through developing capabilities for the gathering. with regard to many risks. Differentiation also allowed for a This content downloaded from 200. This belief in "progress" through reason and "instrumental" rationality has been shattered and it has become evident that "progress. "How things are" (allowed to be) is not simply a matter of ideological assertion . routines. acceptable forms and images of social activity and individual and collective identity": The routines of state both materialize and take for granted particular definitions. in great detail. and controlling of information. In these instances. Rather. the state as an integrating force through moral regulation has become ever less powerful.4 on Mon. instead. licenses. a limitation to any attempts at centralizing power. charters. judicial decisions (and their compilation as case law). the state "creates" society. the state has to rely on education and persuasion. of necessity. . which was informed by the belief that we could become the masters of our own destiny through the advance of human knowledge of. .166.76. Recently.) and quality (the authority claimed for it." Though in some areas. The new risks are not open to mechanisms of "command and obedience. of politics and economics. practice. (Corrigan and Sayer. census returns.. however. The institutionalization of the separation. its "intelligence" . but rather the consequence of social and political struggles.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 267 that manifests itself in such a pluralization of The cultural heterogeneity societal communities is complemented by the state's decline in its capacity to act as a moral (or moralizing) agent. monetary penalties are useless (for example. monetary inducements or penalties (fines and taxes) can be used to influence behavior. also 3-4) As a moral regulator. the institutionalization of separate spheres of action with considerable (and constitutionally protected) autonomy meant also a diffusion of social power and. both in terms of quantity (how much the state knows. This system of power is inseparably also a system of knowledge. and social interest that came together in the technocratic manifestation of rationality and reason. for example. 1996). they are deeply implicated in the process of structural differentiation that is the hallmark of modernity. other sources of knowledge being less authoritative by the very fact of being unauthorized). and all the other myriad ways in which the State states and individualities are regulated. registers. We have been witnessing an increasing disenchantment with the project of the Enlightenment. has resulted in an increase in uncertainty and the creation of new risks threatening the survival of humankind (Beck. . An authoritative solution to these questions imposed from the "center" has become illusionary. the state. by the same token. In this perspective. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . . these new risks are the result notjust of a particular combination of knowledge. That modern society is characterized by functional differentiation is." based on the application of science. tax forms. of church and state.
76. The problem with such a system of government by audit is. 2000: 284). and pluralized. The opinions and decisions of the experts are as unlikely as majoritarian decision-making conclusively to settle and solve these "existential" moral and ethical matters. however. the economic subsystem in its capitalist form has always externalized the cost of securing the existence of the worker and let other forms of association. deal with it. In many western states. the systematic increase in governmental surveillance. 1997). social workers. heterogeneous.4 on Mon. such as the family. public health and moral conduct" (Hirst. new ways will have to be found to uphold societal integration." in a world that has become polycentric. and with delegitimization and demonopolization the formation of radical diversity among the population at large. environmental protection.268 Review25 (3) PoliticalScience International more "efficient" realization of the respective goals of the "subsystems": knowledge could be more efficiently produced once science and religion had become differentiated or the production of commodities and the satisfaction of needs could be more efficiently organized once politics and economics had become institutionalized as distinct structures of social action. premised on the notion of "one-size-fits-all policies. With the incapability of the state authoritatively to impose decisions. surveillance based on norms radicalizes "a clash between standardized definitions of norms and the widely different values groups of citizens bring to issues like healthcare." Yet. For example. who. and expectations underpin a politics which cannot any longer be grounded in a recourse to tradition or transcendence and which has to accommodate wideranging moral reflections on "progress" and the ambivalences of "modernity" without the possibility of appealing to a set of universal principles. we live in a world of radical uncertainty. with the of experts and their expertise. with its attendant threat to civil liberties. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and accountants). (3) The Internationalization of the State and DemocraticGovernance In a recent study.for the very simple reason that all subsystems aim to externalize negative effects or costs of their mode of operation. professionalization. Enlisting third parties and their related technological expertise into regulatory governmental structures remains part of an ideology of unitary governance. contribute to the attempt to achieve hierarchical control in a decentered environment characterized by strong pressures toward autonomy.166. norms. A radical plurality and diversity of opinions. It is highly questionable. Notwithstanding these interconnections and degrees of integration. and organizational structuration of each "subsystem. we must not overlook that the functionally differentiated "subsystems" tend to be interconnected . Second. Restrictions on the exercise of any centralized power as well as the dynamic of the "subsystems" as a result of the increase in "efficiency" (in the sense of acting according to the system-specific criterion of rationality) lie behind the incessant drive to ever greater specialization. state. Kjell Goldmann (2001) has analyzed the structural transformation of the European nation-state in the direction of the internationalization of This content downloaded from 200. with lists of performance indicators and "best practice" models. education. whether under these conditions governance aimed at achieving integration can be reinvented through the establishment of wide-ranging regimes of government using thorough auditing as a strategy of reflexive self-ordering (Power. values. or charitable organizations. however. we can witness the introduction of intensified normalizing regulation by a new class of supervisory professionals (such as school inspectors. first.
Societal internationalization. and ideas. With policy problems being increasingly contingent on conditions. we may discern two major developments (Brenner. He discerns three "master" processes of internationalization.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 269 the state. to supranational decision-making.166.76."as a result of transborder cooperation. transnational economic relations or the increasing transnational movement of people. actions. Third. Yet. and local levels. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . it makes sense for governments to seek solutions at the international level. If. On the other hand. Examples include environmental problems or crime. people. particularly in institutionalized settings. and also "outwards. 2001: 8-17). Jessop. as the examples of the peace and environmental movements demonstrate. 2002: 195) State powers are delegated "upward"to supraregional and international bodies. Second. running from consultation with other states before national decisions are made to negotiated international agreements. urban. to relatively autonomous cross-national alliances among local metropolitan or regional states with complementary interests. 2001: Ch. despite these interdependencies. (Jessop. First. finally. or events abroad. the "internationalization of problems" means that many of the political problems that a country faces come (increasingly) from abroad. 2002). there is an increase in the "internationality"of political decision-making. This internationalization expresses itself in the "intensity"of decision-making. on to decision-making by intergovernmental organizations. Societal internationalization may contribute to the internationalization of national agendas and internationalized decision-making. we focus on the structural effects of internationalization on the state. The "scope" of internationalized decision-making has also changed insofar as we witness the proliferation of international decisionmaking to new. the intensification of all kinds of human relations across nation-state borders manifests societal internationalization: the "internationalization of societies" comprises an increasing exchange of goods. information. in turn. tends to make the concerns of the other participants into one's own. For example. policy areas (Goldmann. The first trend is the "denationalization of the state": This is reflected empirically in the "hollowing out" of the national state apparatus with old and new state capacities being reorganized territorially and functionally on supranational. and. 2). participation in international decision-making. as the case of the EU shows. The second trend is the "destatization of the political system" that manifests itself in the strategic reorientation from government to governance: This content downloaded from 200. transnational cooperation between special interests may be encouraged by internationalized decision-making (Goldmann. "downward"to regional.4 on Mon. 1998: 60-7. national. goods. and capital contain forces beyond national control and may require international cooperation. These three dimensions of internationalization reinforce each other. and ever-expanding. Positions on policy matters may have to be formulated which could otherwise have been sidestepped. On the one hand. subnational and translocal levels as attempts are made by state managers on different territorial scales to enhance their respective operational autonomies and strategic capacities. services. may be fostered by increased political cooperation. for example. the societal perception of problems as being of "international" significance may lead to transnational cooperation between societal actors and hence to societal internationalization.
we must remain aware of the fact that states are not all affected by these developments in the same way. As a result of the binding force of international political agreements. asJames Anderson (2002a: 28) has succinctly argued: With huge advances in space-spanning technologies for moving people and information . While "democracy beyond the nation-state" remains weak. more advanced than the institutions for their democratic control. . . reallocating tasks. the International Monetary Fund (IMF). A similar argument can be advanced with regard to the EU. I shall return to this matter later in this article.. that is. Hirst and Thompson. This tension is aggravated by the repercussions of international policy-making on domestic societies. Ronit.4 on Mon. The consequences of these developments for democratic governance would seem to be obvious. the structures and mechanisms of international regulatory policy-making (such as international governmental organizations) are." and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). a space where states have either entirely transferred responsibilities for managing economic and social relations to private or commercial actors. on the one hand. "democracy within the nation-state" is thus weakened as well. less territorially delimited. 2001. problematic to the extent that it fragments into a plurality of communities. the World Bank. in some domains thereby curtailing the "sovereignty" of their nation-state members. The exercise of public functions by private agencies further adds to the problem of democracy. As a result of a high level of societal differentiation and the increasing transnationalization of a wide range of societal interactions. or are exercising parastatal.270 Review25 (3) International PoliticalScience While denationalization concerns the territorial dispersion of the national state's activities . and democratic legitimacy which remains embedded in "domestic" political institutional arrangements. This development has created an extreme tension between the effectiveness of political problem-solving at the "international" level. Citizens often lack any real chance to exert influence on these private bodies. the effective political solution of ever more societal problems is being sought at a level above or outside the nation-state. 8. "public" functions in "partnership" with these actors .76. and the World Trade Organization (WITO) have acquired ever more authority. in turn. in the age of globalization. and the transnationalization of economic action in particular. 1999: 256-80. and rearticulating the relationship between organizations and tasks across this divide on whatever territorial scale(s) the state in question acts.. as the case of the USA shows. At the same time." "policy communities.the world of New Labour's (and Anthony Giddens's) "Third Way" (see Giddens. Multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. Moreover. democratic politics at the nation-state level is increasingly curtailed. for example. Many transnational interactions." "private interest government.166. nongovernmental." the "third sector. people's actual social communities are more likely to be spatially discontinuous. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." "policy networks. the composition of the citizen body itself has become. In addition. However. 2000: Ch. (Jessop. 2001). 2002: 199) This development creates the political space for "civil society. destatization involves redrawing the public-private divide. or defined by function This content downloaded from 200. These private agencies are essentially undemocratic and the actors tend to be free from constraints from the wider community and often unconstrained by the countervailing powers of governments. have hurried ahead of the current possibilities for their political regulation. on the other.Jones. as we saw above.
are being drawn into a system of "complex multilateralism" in which international NGOs. But markets. 1995. and the World Bank). to prepare the labor supply through education and training. in this as in other policy areas. "the social base for territorially defined democracy becomes less coherent" (2002a: 28). commercial organizations and interests. 2002: 203). in addition to the state's key role in inter-scalar articulation within the emerging governance structure. states may not only retain their own legitimacy. states retain their importance for dealing with social conflicts and securing the social cohesion of a society divided into classes and other forms of social division (Jessop. Holden. Gill. Anderson rightly concludes that. or the London Court of International Commercial Arbitration. They look to the state to protect them from criminal or terrorist attack. Evidently. the American Arbitration Commission. 2003: 246-55. nation-states retain the "nodal role" in the expanding web of state powers. there are the multinational legal firms which feed into this (essentially private) Lex Mercatoria. 2002. and their communities are also increasingly likely to vary. as with their next-door neighbour. The demands for establishing a "cosmopolitan. media companies. Etzioni-Halevy. There are also the various private bodies set up for international commercial arbitration. intergovernmental mechanisms (such as the meetings of the G7). Democratic rule thus becomes problematic. First. Fourth. that have been the building blocks of the multilateral arrangements entered into by sovereign states. Dower and Williams. 1999: 271-5). to ensure law and order and the stabilization and enforcement of property rights. Hirst and Thompson. or across the border in another country. mediating between the increasing number of significant supranational and the subnational scales of action. NGOs. it "falls to the state to facilitate collective learning about functional linkages and material interdependencies among different sites and spheres of action" (Jessop. for different functions and purposes. the changes we witness in the structure of the state are unlikely to lead to its demise. more generally. This may mean regulation through international governmental organizations (such as the IMF.4 on Mon. 2002. like national markets. Held. the WTO. too. or vary more widely. we observe that states together with international governmental organizations. Yet. In effectively dealing with these disruptions." or "transnational"democracy emanate from the perception of such a democratic deficit (Anderson. there has also formed a host of private regulatory systems. states stabilize societies that may be experiencing disruption and dislocation as a result of the effects of globalization. Yet. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . People are increasingly likely to have as much in common with individuals and groups living in another part of their city or country. such as the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. to provide economic support through congenial tax regimes. Through ameliorative action and welfare services. subsidies. to develop communications infrastructure. such as debt security or rating agencies.76. that organize information for suppliers and (private as well as public) borrowers of capital. Paul Hirst has argued that states "are This content downloaded from 200.166. citizens' movements. Second. In addition. global markets. or other forms of state intervention (G. 2000)." "global. or through the development of trade blocs. Third. as a result. need regulation. and. 2002b. and multinational corporations share in the task of governance. 2002: 210-3). and all the other institutions that propel globalization need a secure environment to prosper. but also provide global processes with a veneer of legitimacy.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 271 rather than territory.
1999: 276. gives a good indication as to the required scope of such an exercise and the analytical problems that adhere to it. The territorial state added the promise of expanding material wealth [Treaty of Utrecht. according to the subtitle of his study. but also ratified the dominance of the victorious state form. For Bobbitt. 1713]. and that decisions backed by the major states can be enforced by international agencies because they will be reinforced by domestic laws and local state power. 1555].4 on Mon. in a very mediated degree. The kingly state inherited this responsibility and added the promise of internal stability [Peace of Westphalia. the consequence of such wars is the transformation of the State itself to cope with the strategic innovations that determine the outcome of the conflict" (Bobbitt. (Hirst and Thompson. Bobbitt sets out. (4) Causes Behind the Transformation How the state can go about discharging these functions depends. in turn. international bodies are answerable to the world's key publics. and hence reconstituted international order. and accepted without as an appropriate act of state sovereignty. This endeavor necessitates an inquiry into the formation of the state and its varied institutional manifestations and into the formation of the interstate systems. ultimately. the freedom from domination and interference by foreign powers [Peace of Augsburg. One recently published study. to which the state-nation further added the civil and political rights of popular sovereignty [Congress of Vienna." going on to suggest that: States ensure that. to trace the course of history through an analysis of war and peace. 2002a: 333). Such an endeavor is clearly outside the scope of this article. the question of how democratically and efficiently to control this state-based authority retains its significance. on the constellation of social forces and dynamics of the institutional structure in each particular state. see also Hirst. Bobbitt distinguishes between five state forms of the past which were ratified at five epochdefining peace conferences: The princely state promised external security. their power.76. Each great peace conference that ended an epochal war therefore not only wrote a constitution for the society of states. A comprehensive account of the formation of the sociopolitical and institutional arrangements of states and changes in state form would have to be embedded in an analytical history of state-building in Europe over the past millennium.272 PoliticalScience Review 25 (3) International pivots between international agencies and subnational activities because they provide legitimacy as the exclusive voice of a territorially bounded population. 1648]. He further argues that each state form is the outcome of "epochal wars": "Because the very nature of the State is at stake in epochal wars. This content downloaded from 200. and even expand. Legitimacy must cloak the violence of the State. the state is distinctive in that the violence it deploys on behalf of its subjects or citizens must be legitimate: "it must be accepted within as a matter of law. or the State ceases to be" (2002a: 17). Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles (2002a). On the basis of this linkage between the state and legitimacy. contribute to innovations in state forms. which are both formed by the state and. 2001) To the extent that states retain. which has been widely discussed within academia and the general public.166. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .
and.. in preference to management by national or transnational political bodies. 2002a: 233): Such a [market-]state depends on the international capital markets and. It will thus lose its legitimacy. third. more generally. than those of the nation-state. sacrifices the opportunities available to the consumer to the long-term opportunities of the society. and the concomitant loss of legitimacy for the nationstate. and the technology of rapid mathematical computation) have wrought dramatic changes in the military. lead to a new constitutional order: a market-state that no longer aims to improve the wellbeing of the nation. fifth. cultural. Like the nation-state. 2002b). customs.. Bobbitt's central claim is that the nationstate can no longer fulfill its function of maintaining. second. fourth. Its political institutions are less representative . This development has been caused by strategic innovations that led to the victory of the liberaldemocratic version of the nation-state over both its fascist and communist variants. but to "make the world available" for the individual by creating new worlds of choice and protecting the autonomy of the person to choose (Bobbitt.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 273 1815]. and economic challenges that face the nation-state (Bobbitt. the development of weapons of mass destruction that render the defense of state borders ineffectual. 2002a: 215) As far as our discussion is concerned. constitute the Peace of Paris. namely. international communications. and cultures (Bobbitt. The end of this epochal war came in the late 1980s with the collapse. or famine) that no nation-state alone can control or evade. on the modern multinational business network to create stability in the world economy. Bobbitt highlights five as of particular importance: first. to a lesser degree. Japan may develop into this type. the recognition of human rights as norms that require adherence within all states regardless of their internal laws. to better the wellbeing of the people. but in contrast to the nation-state it does not see the State as more than a minimal provider or redistributor. It was ratified by an array of international treaties. the creation of a global communications network that penetrates borders and threatens national languages. These developments. which. of the state socialist societies in central and eastern Europe and. steers certain important enterprises toward success. To all these responsibilities the nation-state added the promise of providing economic security and public goods to its people [Treaty of Versailles. subsidizes crucial research and development. disease. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . protects national identities. which curtails the capacity of states for economic management. the market-state assesses its economic success or failure by its society's ability to secure more and better goods and services. The mercantile market-state relies upon a strong central government. the growth of global capitalism. in their totality. 2002a: 216). 1919]. of the Soviet Union in 1991. 1990. and. first. . (Bobbitt. 2002a: 229) This market-state comes in three variants.76. 2002a: 214-28. . The managerial market-state operates a "social market economy" organized around free and open markets within a regional trading framework as a counterweight to This content downloaded from 200. second. the proliferation of global and transnational threats (such as those that damage the environment or threaten states through migration.4 on Mon. Three strategic innovations that won this epochal war (nuclear weapons. Among the developments that he identifies as fundamentally undermining the legitimizing premise of the nation-state.166. nurturing. (Bobbitt. . and improving the conditions of its citizens.
social. 2002a: 336-7. or the International Court ofJustice. governments. Jones. globalization is not best understood as an independent variable that "affects" the nation-state and its policy capabilities .4 on Mon. the transition from one state form to another is technologically determined. The society of market-states will not abolish war.166. The entrepreneurial marketstate. mainly in the area of macroeconomic management (Boyer. manifest "political" roots in the decisions and nondecisions of national governments over the past three decades or so. need not fear opposition or even resistance from its citizens. upholds the ideal of minimal state intervention in the economy as well as in the private lives of its citizens. It seeks the sharing of collective goods within that society. 2000). future." by which Stephen Gill (in contradistinction to Kjell Goldmann) means the development of a state that has become increasingly attuned to and conditioned and restructured by the pressures emanating from the global economy (S. It also blurs the distinction between the welfare of the single state and that of the society of states. An alternative theoretical framework would focus on the political economy of the social reproduction of capitalism.274 Review25(3) Intenational PoliticalScience national competition. it is a manifestation of "the cunning of reason. 2000. In this perspective. At the heart of this project of global governance lies the attempt to "lock in" commitments to liberalization and to "lock out" popular-democratic and parliamentary forces from control over crucial economic. we may notice a complete lack of inquiry into the field of social forces whose conflicts and contestations. State policies of liberalization. Looking simply at the theoretical framework of Bobbitt's analysis." Yet. 2000: 55-64). Globalization is not "technologically" driven. then. based on a libertarian ethos. so Bobbitt avers. and ecological This content downloaded from 200. hence.76. but a political "project" aimed at stabilizing capitalism Economic "globalization" has had through global economic management. It will be a system in which the power and influence of the great international organizations of the society of nation-states. and marketization that have been presented by national and transnational political and economic elites as a necessary and inevitable "response" to the "challenges" of globalization to the nation-state have propelled (economic) globalization forward. 2002a: 363-4). 2003). the United Nations. Gill. it regains legitimacy and. and ad hoc coalitions which will share overlapping authority within a framework of universal commercial law. but regionalized political rule. nongovernmental organizations. 671-3). a government that provides a safety net and manages a stringent monetary policy. resulting in transition from the industrial welfare state to the neoliberal "competition state" (Cerny. For Bobbitt." Once the state has embodied "technological innovations" in its (new) institutional structures as a result of the considered choices made by its political elites." the result of a wise acceptance of the necessary. deregulation. and therefore does not signal "the end of history. entrepreneurial market-state (Bobbitt. Germany and (possibly) the European Union may approximate this variant. although mediated through political leadership or "statecraft. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The society of market-states. This kind of global governance is premised on "the internationalization of the state. will be much diminished (Bobbitt. though structured. will be composed of multinational companies. institutions such as the World Bank. Bobbitt counsels that the USA should continue along the road to becoming a fully fledged.although such an erosion can be discerned. and move history away from a trajectory of the inevitable toward an open-ended. and a socially cohesive society. struggles and resistances mediate socio-structural change and political development.
16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 2003: 197) ." In all the democratic nation-states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. professional associations. voluntary associations. Thus. there are the new financial and transnational corporate elites combined with the managers of the newly-empowered multilateral institutions like the IMF. The substantive differences between this position and that of Bobbitt need not concern us in the context of our discussion. or IMF meetings may serve as examples (S. Gill. rather than protecting the privacy of the individual and respecting her or his autonomy." each country has built up political parties. World Bank. trade unions. and media for the formation and expression of public This content downloaded from 200. 1996: 39). This global governance is carried through by a transnational class: "In addition to state managers (those embracing liberalization).2 Nor do we need to list the similarities in their respective analyses.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 275 policies (S. as well as the resistance they encounter in (local and global) civil societies. Stephen Gill is also adamant that neoliberalism. 1996: 32). this line of reasoning sees an increasing importance for intergovernmental organizations and multilateral institutional arrangements because of their centrality in capitalist regulation. can usefully be distinguished from more corporatist forms of either an Asian or western European variety. 2003: 214). The networks of groups and movements that make up the protesters at WTO. Bobbitt's market-state is largely identical with the "internationalized state" and there is also agreement that the neoliberal form of capitalism. pace Bobbitt. Of greater importance for our discussion are the differences in the theoretical framework. and cultural struggles around the formation of centralized. This is for the simple reason that neoliberal policies entrench social inequalities and dislocations as well as political polarizations both locally and globally. Of course."the alternative perspective emphasizes the constellation of class forces. and so have the course and outcome of the struggles caused by it. For example. "neo-liberalism necessarily involves the use of coercive power. allied to practices of intensified surveillance ('transparency') of populations" (S. prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon world. special interest groups. and thus as being amenable to collective agency. 2003: Ch. the formation of transnational elites. But we may also detect a trend toward the formation of counter-hegemonic forces of resistance at the global level. the World Bank and the World Trade Organization" (McMichael. we can detect a trend toward "the centralization of power in multilateral institutions to set global rules and the internationalization of those rules in national policy-making" (McMichael. The examination of the "opportunity structure" of collective agency may require combining "political economy" with "comparative politics. the precise cleavage structure has been different in each country. Gill. undermines liberties and destroys civil society. 11).166. Among the forces that have had the greatest impact on the formation of these systems. their modes of interaction and institutional settings. we find well-developed systems of interest formation and intermediation. in contrast to Bobbitt's emphasis on the importance of "statecraft. of institutionalized conflict management and institutionalized norms of social justice. For these reasons. Gill. each country has developed complexes of interest formation and intermediation that are fairly idiosyncratic. economic.76. and secularized. state structures and of industrialcapitalist national economies stand out. we are invited to understand historical processes of social and political structural transformation as outcomes of political contestations. In the process of democratization and the formation of "masspolitics. In this perspective. the political. It is clear that.4 on Mon. As a result. For example.
structures of industrial relations. they are open to modification and transformation. James (2002a). to the specific mix of policies through which national welfare states became institutionalized. 2. and the allocation of jurisdictions and resources to subnational. and citizens must be willing to pay for them. References Anderson. To explain such convergence and divergence in policies or structural reforms. 6). Anderson. 1999: Ch. while their levels of productivity and their record of job creation (as in the case of. and Taiwan have relied on domestic capital formation. a major challenge for the analyst. "National" economies and national welfare states exhibit distinct structures and institutional features that influence the degree to which they are able to respond to.276 International PoliticalScience Review 25 (3) opinion. Territoriality and Globalisation." Furthermore. to achieve high income levels or why Indonesia. The same is true of systems of social inequality and class formation. Torpey (2000). tactics. Singapore. Such solidaristic values and attitudes must be embedded in a national political culture. Reno (2000) discusses the interesting phenomenon firms acting as mediators between "strong" and "weak" states. It allows us to understand why countries such as South Korea. for example. for example. manifestly. it is necessary to analyze how specific structures and structural configurations reinforce selectively specific forms of action. suffered more severe dislocations in the Asian Crisis of 1997-8 than Malaysia. political mobilization and citizens' involvement at the "local" level are necessary (Hirst and Thompson. This observation applies. the incorporation of interest groups into the political system. public welfare services must be wanted. and Whitaker (1999). and contain the possibility of their decay. To the extent that institutional structures are recursively reproduced through specific forms of action. At the same time. which had pursued a policy of exchange controls and of attracting long-term direct investment (Jones." in This content downloaded from 200. "The Shifting Stage of Politics: New Medieval and Postmodern Territorialities?" Environment and Planning (Society & Space) 14(2): 133-53. McCahill (2002). Yet party systems. 2001: 1224). and acted upon. see Garland (2001). Lyon (2001). An analysis of path dependency leads us to ask (to take yet another example) why the highly internationalized smaller European states have higher than average levels of public expenditure and extensive welfare provision. and even propel. or strategies and discourage others. Denmark and the Netherlands) is comparable to the USA. and municipal bodies have developed in historically distinct ways in each case.4 on Mon. 2000: Ch. 10). regional. "Questions of Democracy. by citizens. social and political actors are capable of reflection about "the strategic selectivities inscribed within structures so that they come to orient their strategies and tactics in the light of their understanding of the current conjuncture and their 'feel for the game"' (Jessop. and demanded. "globalization. Notes of transnational private security 1. with its reliance on foreign capital. For works relating to surveillance. rather than on policies to attract foreign capital.166. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .76. How these structures and the identity of relevant actors are best defined in concrete cases remains. James (1996). but for them to be sustained.
4 on Mon. London: Sage. Gill. New Haven. London: Continuum. The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. Robert (2000). Liberal Democracy into the Twenty-First Century: Globalization. Paul (2000). Nigel and Williams. This content downloaded from 200." British Journal of Criminology 40(3): 279-95. Brian (2000). Axtmann. Cambridge: Polity Press. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Political Theory and Rights of Indigenous Peoples.)." in Randall Germain (ed. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. (2001). Derek (1985). "Democracy.166. On Democracy. London: Continuum. "Beyond State-Centrism? Space. Cambridge: Polity Press. BalancingDemocracy.). Cohen. (1990). eds (2002). Etzioni-Halevy. Dahl. Alain G. BalancingDemocracy. Bobbitt. David (2001). Quasi-States: Sovereignty. December 27: 22. Paul and Sanders. Jackson. Transnational Democracy. "The Political in the Era of Globalization and Finance: Focus on Some Pgulation School Research. Globalization and Its Critics. Robert H. David (1995). Beck. Pluralism and Social Control. Brenner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Philip and Sayer. Bobbitt. Political Spaces and Border Crossings. Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader. Boyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garland. Hirst. Cambridge: Polity Press." in Roland Axtmann (ed. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. eds (2001)." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(2): 274-322. Multinational Democracies. "Between the Local and the Global: Democracy in the Twenty-First Century. James. Manchester: Manchester University Press. James. "Diasporas and the Nation-State: From Victims to Challengers. Robert A. London: Allen Lane. "Statism. The Nature and Development of the Modern State. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson. The Global Third WayDebate.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barry (2001). Neil (1998). Roland (1996). Philip (2002a). Barry. Giddens. (2000). Duncan. Paul (2001). London: Routledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gagnon. Graeme (2003)." International Affairs 72 (4): 507-20. (2002). Global Democracy: Key Debates. Dower. Oxford: Blackwell. The Shield of Achilles: War. Peace and the Course of History. Transnational Democracy: Political Spaces and Border Crossings. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. 2nd edn. International Relations and the Third World. Held. (2002b). 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Cambridge: Polity Press. Philip (2002b)." Theory and Society 28 (1): 39-78. ed. Transforming the European Nation-State: Dynamics of Internationalization. Paul and Thompson. and Geographical Scale in Globalization Studies. Ivison. Power and Resistance in the New World Order. London: Routledge. Gill. Will. (2001). Cerny. Philip (2000)." The Times.). Holden. London: Routledge. CT. Graham (1999). Anthony. Robin (1996). "The Archbishop is Right: The Nation-State is Dying." in Roland Axtmann (ed. London: Palgrave. eds (2000). London: Palgrave. Hirst. Corrigan." International Political Science Review 23(2): 203-22. Barry. Kjell Goldmann. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. Territoriality. Patton. Stephen (2003). Ulrich (1996). Hindess. (1998). "Linkage Deficits in Transnational Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. and Tully.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 277 James Anderson (ed. and London: Yale University Press. "Restructuring the Political Arena: Globalization and the Paradoxes of the Competition State. John. ed. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. E. Hirst.76. Integration and the Nation-State.
James (2000). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. "The Politics of Contemporary Ethno-Nationalist Conflicts. 1760-1914. Chandran (2003). Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity. "After Nostalgia? Wilful Nostalgia and the Phases of Globalization. The Future of the Capitalist State.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bob (2002). Lyon." Environment and Planning A 33(7): 1213-35. "Internal Wars. "The Political Economy of 'Quasi-Statehood' and the Demise of 19th Century African Politics. The Surveillance Web: The Rise of Visual Surveillance in an English City. eds (2000). Biographical Note ROLAND AXTMANN is a Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen. Transnational Democracy:Political Spaces and Border Crossings. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Roland (1990). Robertson. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Kymlicka. New York: New Press. Bhikhu (2000). (1999). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Karsten (2001). Wilson." Sociological Analysis 46 (3): 219-42. The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. William (2000). Parekh. Jessop. Paul (2002).76. "Humanity. The Sources of Social Power. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Robin (2001). London: Sage. Whitaker. Barry (2000). Political Theory and Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance." Rural Sociology61 (1): 25-55. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. McCahill. London: Routledge. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . "Reconstituting the Modem State. "Institutional Re(turns) and the Strategic-Relational Approach. J." Review of International Studies 25 (2): 233-55." International Politics 37 (1): 57-74. Multiculturalism Reconsidered: "Culture and Equality" and Its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification." Administration and Society33 (5): 555-78. Reno. Wayne. (1985). Paul Patton and Will Sanders (eds). Tully. He also serves as the Associate Director of the university's Centre for the Study of Globalization. Citizenship in Diverse Societies.278 International PoliticalScience 25 (3) Review Jessop. Buckingham: Open University Press. 2: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States. Carolyn M. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Torpey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Will (1995). Turner (ed.166. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kukathas. Globalization and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration." in Duncan Ivison. Oxford: Oxford University Press. He has held visiting appointments at the This content downloaded from 200.). "Globalization: Myths and Realities. "Institutions of Private Authority in Global Governance: Linking Territorial Forms of Self-Regulation. Michael (1993). The World Turned Upside Down? Globalization and the Future of the State. RJ. The Liberal Archipelago:A Theory of Diversity and Freedom.). Bhikhu (2002).S. Philip (1996). John (2000). Warner. Robertson. "The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom. Jones. Mike (2002).4 on Mon. Kelly. Will and Norman. Ronit. Kymlicka. Bob (2001). Mann." in James Anderson (ed." Nations and Nationalism 7 (3): 365-84. and the Shift in Strong State-Weak State Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Private Enterprise. Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Parekh. Manchester: Manchester University Press." in B. Reg (1999). Michael (1997). Roland and Chirico. McMichael. Citizenship and the State. David (2001). Vol.
the University of Heidelberg (Germany).76. and macro-political change in the current age of globalization. University of Aberdeen. AB24 3QY.AXTMANN: TheStateof theState 279 University of Graz (Austria). Scotland [email: r. and the University of California at Los Angeles (USA).uk]. This content downloaded from 200.axtmann~abdn.166. He has published widely on matters concerning democracy and democratic theory. on state formation in Europe from a historical-sociological perspective. ADDRESS: Department of Politics and International Relations. 16 Sep 2013 18:15:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .ac.4 on Mon. Aberdeen.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.