Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Theories of State PDF

    Uploaded by

    Shreya Sethi
    28 views24 pages

    Original Title

    Theories of State (1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    28 views24 pages

    Theories of State PDF

    Uploaded by

    Shreya Sethi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    Theories of the State The politics of liberal democracy Patrick Dunleavy and Brendan O'Leary MACMILLAN ED 10N 1 Introduction \ ‘The state benefits and it threatens. Now it is “us” and often it is “them”. It is an abstraction, but in its name men are jailed, or made rich on oil depletion allowances and defence contrac:s, or killed in wars’ (Edelman, 1964, p. 1). How should this abstraction, the state, be defined? Many replies have been given to this question, but for our purposes there are two broad answering strategies organizational definitions and functional definitions: is the process of making rules, pecially in Westeen inisters form of ‘Government guiding or regulating. More loosely, ¢s Europe, government is synonymous with the elected m who are formally in charge of departments. Some [orm government is intrinsic TreERTISE T soce which is totally uconuralledy-uaguided and-uoseaulaied it contradiction in By contrast, the state ~ ee ofganizationally ~ is not ing i to human society 1" have been, and still are seeing to anthropologi state-less_ societies, such as segmentary page ons small, isolated bands, in which rules and decision collectively. or through implicit_negoua'iol 1 tribal systems OF are made with 90 W The state is a recognizabl 2 Theories of the State speci persons. Frequently the basi or religious, By special type of government characteristics: Y Separate institutions, so differentiated f s to create identifiable public and prin’ FES Of sociey se 2 The state.is sousteige, or the supreme preres territory, and by definition the ultimate sugene oth : binging rule supported by coercivesanction, oe clas i ¢ officials and backe oF 7 a is made by stateofhcials and backed By formating eee 3 The state's sovereignty extends fh hehe a given territory, and applies lequally, sen us formal positions of government or rul sovereignty is distinct from the time occupy a particular role 4 The'modern state's personnel are mostly recruited and rained for management in a bureaucratic mannel (taxation) _to finance its activities population) | 4 These characteristics are abstractipns w applicable to all modern countries. However, represent the features which most social scien historians would say distinguish the modeca state from pre- modern_governing systems, There is nothing obvioush democratic about the state in the organizational defi despite the formal requirement that subjection to sovese ‘applies to all individuals. Equally this approach leaves open the question of whether the stage should be rented 3 3 single, unified actor, or as the $ a of the i izations, oF as activities of the individuals in state OR seal ns. conglomerate of sub-organizatior genizaco of regimes, fu! definition suggests 2 © societies with a well develops highly centralized -—tterarchics | jand_bureaucratic. Ingroduction 3 erful exec For reasons d of the moderns ace we cannot discuss here the emergence as an organization Personal proper of 2 monarch or a prince, nor is 5 development with capit fk democracy. (For Anderson, 1974; Tully, 1975; Finer, 1975; Bendix, | Skinner, 1978.) Nonetheless, "a feudal era. Compared. wi » the USA, Canada and countries some respects relatively undeve! zlso evident i w val definition recognizes forms in which modern states have developed are of er ortance Unless oxnerwise stated we use the organizaons: ‘roughout this book of the state can take two forms. One, ex, approach cefues the state a3 thaL_sei_oliastisutions which edtrics out particular goals, flurposes or ofjectives. An obvious contrast with the organizational approach is that “the state’ may be empirically identified with 2 range of institutions not normally ¢lassified as part of the ‘public’ spher n whose goals or purposes ov with ‘state functions’ automatically becomes part of the stays ‘A second, epost approach defines the state by consequences, 7. The maintenance of social order The state is identified with those institutions or patterns of benaviowr hat have stabilizing effects. Again, this approach enlarges what caiTCOUnTas @ component of “the state’, For instance, we say that 2 key function of the state is to produce social unitary ‘actor’ the sfate as a ni of the state are especially promi Dut also occur in some pluralin elecury eet SREESBEES Liberal democracy is the key contex: role of the state. The concept ‘dentoc: through its Greek roots: demos, meahing the ‘citizen bods and crag, meaning ‘the rule of" Originally democracy meant the Tule of the citizen body as ppposed wo the rule of the_ aristocracy or the monarchy. In!ancient Greek democracies the citizen’ body_was narrowly defined, Females, slaves, foreigners, men aged under 30, and those unable to afford to bear arms were all excluded. Although democracy was sometimes understood as the rile of the poor. or the lower classes, 2 majority of the poor (iL, women and slaves) were not citizens. So in practice the Greek described as a military democracy. N who counted as citizens, democracy direct rule, or collective self-government. In ancient during the fifth century BC the assembly of citizens was sovereign on all matters, and a majority vote decided every political issue (normally b: how of hands). Citizens drew lots for judicial and admi effective instruments for controlling their major elected officials. For example, Athenian generals were subject to annual re-election and could be ostracized, that is expelled from the city for a decade, if a certam percentage of the inens voted a ontrasta a liberal democracy move from executive sovereign mostly in_name, exercising while the rulers of the state are being clected. Ci have an untrammelled right to pass whatever they want law, but must je agreement of elected legis The power to ‘recal force them to stand for re-election before their ter th we analyse the is best understood Introduction 5 the mass of citizens do not expires, is limiteyr Above participate directly_in_pol Under liberal democracy, the laws and develop _polici employees, loosely deseribe sem) democracies: offic othe major making-on individual toajaniy_cule principle. Appo es such as trial BY ju instructing > which —miishrooenea Th protected ne state and from major s should be, and whethe: nts to hold property, have been « Ata minimum, 1s of free expression, 1s should always be on of uber formally, liberal democracy is x system 6 Theories of the State representative government by majority rule ini which some ind less protected from interference ucand cannof be resicted-even by an electoral The extent to whtel™ tase soviatioy—conmmon ed as liberal democracies have approximated emains very controversial. Liberal democrse equivalent to just any system of majority rule, Concewnbleg democracy can operate in an iiliteral fashion, when y freedoms are persistently denied not because they infringe upon the freedom of others but because of major tyranny 1.1 Controversies about the state The state is a word on everybody's lips. Technacrats claim they can steer it, judges that they can discern icians that they know hew to seemed (0 believe that the state sho re’, a ‘referee’, a regulator and an arbi "= ‘of conflicting inieresis In, society ‘Marsists have condemned the state as. ai ‘executive committee’ of a dominan tccga of formulas’ to foal the s. Others want to “smash! the uate, oF couse * er away into a historical merrory. Anarchist an movements have claimed that they ci go beyond the state altogether. (So far only revolutionaries have had much opportunity to break promises.) But most political thinkers have regarded Aiate as an ineluctable feature of modernity, part of landscape of a jcieties_ovher-than those based on kinship or feudal patronage. They regard the-state as indispensable to complex societies. It isthe factor of cohesion yn a social formation’ “the authoritative allocator of values"; controlling ‘a monopoly of legitimate violence within a given territory \t aenist itis the ‘public power’ or source of ethical authority), Even amongst those persuaded that some form of now indispensable, there are passionate disagreement aracter, and appropriate state regard il as 2 xv 00d", ‘the public inverest' or ‘th hailed the stats. rather obscure ait and parcel of God's journey. towards terres Others are more cautious in their estimations, Ever mindful of the state's capacity to be manipulated and transformed f oppressive purposes, they would “bin what Hobbes calles’ Leviathan. On this view co devices Should be used tevmake the state aces tastitytional and social_pluralism to di S organizations and tap intervene only if priv encht efficiently or © Se al.y conveyed by private ownership, and “> provide goads of services on trom the mask: prinaple (what you pay for ge’), ‘New right) political movements in the US. Western Euzope are often strongly in favour of rove intervention in the Frst sph i by spending more on defence, of by taking 2 dogmanc cand on moral issues) while simultaneously proposing to ‘roll bach the state’ in the Aelds of social welfare and econemic of X = Second sohere intervention: organizing terveation favoured Y¥ = Fiest sphere of i Jaw, order, datence, Ideological perspectives on state intervention management, Some forms of d reverse position, favouring the Tiberajiza and a lower profile for the state ‘in n of government acti llustrates how some major ideoldgi adopted varying a n of moral issues, the first sphere but an the second: Figure 1.1 des towards these two dimensions of * Introduction 9 Our central focus is upon those conte State which have prompted ae eeTPOPY theories ofthe the social scieaces, mainly within py sociology and political economy. We cls under the following headings: plural elite theory, Marxism and neo-plura i y arise: why did we choose t what do our categories exclude? the approaches we have chos ng: they help stadents of polities undersignd wo least differently; they encourage useful and testable questions; and they provide modes of exslan and research which allow debates to be resolved or in a more sophisticated way. These theories of be applied to any Western democracy; unlike much work in political science their relevance is not confined to a specific society or culzure, We have defined the five theories of the state in our own way, in the process part them. We are well aware that itis ind than schools which think and write, thinkers cut across our analytic categories. But would rather be that the complex works of any real author should slot nea:.y into only one of our boxes, We have tried hard not to caricature or érastically over-simplify maicers in ed versions of schools of thought. we draw between pluralist, elitist and Marxist apo: contemporary politics are widely recognized, although 0 Presentation 9. cheir internal divisions is more occasion, however, we have made some contro decisions. Fer example, we have classified Mancur O! Work on collective action, plus much of organiza and liberal corporatism. as components of elize theory. Ou chief innovation is to distinguish new right and neo-pluralist categories as szparate bodies of thought, where mast other comparative surveys classify them under co: nal Pluralism (see Alford and Friedland, 1985) In our view modern liberal thought is increasingly bifurcating between the new right end neo-pluralist viewpoints, and it is esse 10 cover are often and some surprise OY 10. The ihe State I to consider explicitly the points at issue between cir differences from the plural far period lem, and hodoxy of the carly n which might arise about our selec is why these particular categoties of theory rather thon others? For example, where are the ecologists, or feminists? Where arg tot relations, jurisprudential, or systtms socio-biological and even psychoana state? Where are Firestone, Friel Freud? Despite appearances, some’ of arguments are included. Others we because we do not have the spact, knowledge to explore them, Some minating, hard to render comprehensible, incapable of being tested in any rigorous manner, irrelevant to the of liberal democracies, or wholly implaus chose our five categories becabse we bel contemporary and future political frgument, however poorly articulated, is and will be conducigd in the language of these different approaches. Two further caveats are in order about what is missing our survey and reconstruction. First, we focus mainly the domestic politics of liberal democratic states, leaving on one side both the relations between Western democracies and their relations with other types of states. We plead shortage of space, the focus of the theories themselves standard disciplinary divisions of labour in mi Second, we focus upon the state rather than upon soc Consequently, no comprehensive attention is paid to et nationalism or gender, except: insofar as these aspects of social identities are relevant to what we call “input politics and state stability. Clearly ethnicity, gender and nationalism are major features of the political landscape in contemporary eral democracies, but to cover these aspects of society ‘adequately would require a very different book ‘The plan of the book is simple. The five approaches ~ pluralism, the new right, elite theory, Marxism and neo- pluralism ~ are each discussed in separate chapters. These chapters have the same structure. First, we briefly explore jodels? What. about al theories of the Foucault or even these ideas and have neglected partly the time or the detailed pA roaches we have found er en irs and development of exch approach make no attempt to present a complete history 9? iaees for each theory, but we do identify their importary ese cue and stages of evolution. Second, we describe methods ond values associated’ with each theomy In one judgement there is no very tight fit between ga methodology anc substantive theories of the star uninterested in such issues can skip these sections shes wish. Third, we discuss how each body of theon anaes input politics in the liberal democratic state. This phrase 5 piece of systems theory jargon which has become » sy for studying whe makes demands upon the state, what demands are, and how these demands are made’ Fourth. we explore state organization and modes of policy-making Tow ards he middle or end of each main chapter we introduce wumber of subsidiary ‘images’ or models of the siate relations with its society as a way of understanding internal divisions within each broad theor ipproach The last sections of Chapters 2-6 analyse the cmc or dilemmas in state-society relations which cach appro, highlights We draw together our co: hat any sions in Chapter 7, by arg cory af the state can be expressed so three different p: of the st democracies. The first image is that of a passive ¢ . ly delivers whatever the dom y demand. The state is a nonen: approaches, pluralism, the new righ and neo- ty oF paw ow sight find thi anguish a ruling elite, based ruling class; and citizens’ preferences are followed even though they « exert direct control over decision-makers. The second image 's that of @ partisan state, which primarily purs goals of state officials while conciliating some other in society whose co-operation is required. For pluralists tie Partisan state is a broker; for the new right plu te ee : z % 2 \ Pluralism 12 Theories of the State wasteful machine out of control; for dominant state sector elite; apparatus which ean act independently when the anes Suussle is evenly balanced, Only the neospluralist approsaky does not have in image of the state. The general interest. Natural state as o within capitalism; and for neo-plur: blic policy f fragmented professions’ image of social needs. / and ideological prac 2.1 Origins and development 318 Theories of the State A good example of these distortin, ises as success of the Thatcher government in the 19800 fe. 6 which ee mandate for'a monetarist economic experimen which simply hoisted the rate of British points higher than it need haw compensating reductions inj Suell political crises ches the Thatcher government's measures effectively unemployment over five years and squeezed ‘a state programmes to pay for them Cultural crises arise in the neo new-right and neo-Marxist the capitalist values which happen to be function y and cohesion. The ‘culuiral contradictions of capitalism’ arise from the conffiftting pressures on state to accommodate and jajudicate diverse social and from the erosion of tra 'e been, withou Alation beyond ious cycles of de ine, as when tripled mass ier wellare pluralist accounts, as in some ‘ries, from the er ion of p for social nal barriers 10 the 1£76). In the modern period lusionment with social arrangements, resulting in Part from a loss of .common cultural assumptions. is distinctively focused on government rather than on business or other aspects of the social as previously important (such as religion). Technological dkcay dramatized by sharp ‘cel crises and reversions had stinjulated a sigeifcans minority in some Western countries into a cultural rev against industrialism per se. This. mood tends in the growth of post-materialist ideologies. Pressure groups which appear as threatening signs of cultural fracturing, Some neo-pluralists see these movements as threatening 2 wholesale rejection of modernity. But others believe that in time they may. become a new source ol strength, helping to create a divtrsity from which new policy technologies and new images of social development can be constructed. be reflected ifestyles and 7 Summing Up the State Debate In this chapter we move on from expounding theories of the liberal democratic state to ask four gener questions. First, is focusing on ‘the state’ a fair wa comparing acco.nts of liberal democr biased agains: those approaches in whi central concep: of do these apparent convergences s possible to construct an agreed picture of ities by synthesizing existing acco: us accounts remain distinct, do 1 suggest tha: liberal democraute p: ies of the themes? Finally, how ferent accounts surveved” Are lity or validity, such as agreed cules abou: how t9 inzegrate theories and em evidence? Or do choices between tdgements about what counts as an interesting or convincing account of democratic polisies? structured arc decide ber 319 520 Theories of the State I Surming Up the 7.1 Focusing on the state f a coul But a concept of ‘the 322 Theories of the State the domi nt Powers in the economy external attack (Burnham, 1862. p75} 24 *2¢lety. from Expressed in non-functional the liberal democratic state as language, Burnham's defending prope monopolim puted Howes fd the concept ist and new-right ‘aries of the state which are as rich and as varied as those of other approaches, . 7.2 Overlaps and cleavages between theories of the state Focusing on state/civi none of the theories of the state are comple:ely other perspectives. Each of the five approaches has su overlaps with its neighbours, shown in Figure 71 where the varying size of areas indicates the degree of convergence roaches and the exten ha ion remains in each theory Two central accounts make the whole set of theories cohere as a group ~ elite theory and pluralism. Elite cheory overlaps substantially with all four of the remaining theories, making it harder to designate a distinctive core in Although pluralist thought overlaps with neo-plur hew-right views, as well as elite theory, a larger P view can te easily distinguished. Neo-plussiis. interconnects with both ¢lite theory and conve and since this body of work is rece pluralism, Hf ea developing, it has a smaller core area, The fe 0) end of the ideological spectrum an: i ae the most discrete approaches Mn the other remain th _ thought overiaps with pluralism Summing Up the Stove Debate - FIGURE 7.1 Overlaps between theories of the state is an extensive ane. We briefly discuss of these areas of convergence in turn numbered as in Figure 7 | L Instrumental Marx converge in arguing trol party compet ‘ass media coverage i approaches argue shat in a capitalist. genuine cantral by ord uaens over® Roth models aise pusic 324 Theories of the State their detailed arguments. primaril pluralism, focusing o elite values, and si the state apparatus, 2. Blite theory and neo-pluralisn overlap in arguing that liberal corporatst arrangements and technoeratic eeeeeas have Misplaced representative polities in determining voch policies as macro-economic management, much delivery of welfare state services, or the direction of technological development. Elite theory secs. liberal Corporatism as potentially ‘fascism with a human face’ (Pahl and Winkler, 1975; Schmitter, 1982), Neo-plur insistent on the’ inescapable logic of deci which pushes governments sean Rccommodation with buen, neg Siacintoes ed ae labour movement. Elite theory sefsftechnocratie government a8 a cohesive system in which state elites implement their ‘wn-pteferences rather than societal demands, Nao-plara concur in recognizing 1 fon of many policy areas from direct citizen control, but see power as vested in fragmented, professionalized knowledge g in discrete sections of a decentralized network of stare organizations. There ace strong barfers to any eumu'aton of power across issue areas, and neu) forms of contol in Ul interest keep the overall system che zen preferences 3. Some participatory versions’ bf conve resemble neoeplralism, as one m pluralist writers once espoused conventional pluralist views accounts recognize that littlé point is served by trying une conventional input polities while the agend [or eal debate it constrained by business predamisrnce vy the control of economic. resburces. Both views seac not by rub eral democracy but by searching for institutional chafges (such a8 democray) to offet these imitaiden, sts and elite theoWy writers share four through a critique of the narrow social backgrounds, sharéd Insulation of the personnel manning with 4. Some plur democratic elitist ideas ~ Schuthpeier’s mode! of party compe shavioural theories of the importance of government stal ys an emphasis on the separation of elites Summing Up the State De rather than their cohesion in any unified ruling gr Weber's account of the critical role of bureaucracy modernization. From 1945 to 1960 pluralists” ‘revisionist’ account of liberal democracy was dominated by: chemes suc as the need t0 avoid ‘caucus’ control of party leaders by their members, o¢ how apathy enhances-democratic stabiliy-by keeping the less socialized aid potentially authoritarian ide the political process tlite theory has converged on a similar po: by organization studies’ emphasis on the of rational decision-making or of enhancing popular pation. The small overlap area between is constituted chiefly by Olson's choice theory of interest groups, which we have classed as fundamentally an clite theory contribution but which links closely with his later (1982) work in a new-right vein, In addition, the new right's idea professional-intelleciual elites constitute 2 ‘new shapes welfare policies in its own interests) is quite close to some elite theory accounts of technacracy 6. There is also extensive convergence betwee pessimistic pluralist literature on ‘governmen and American neo-conservatism — which ih pract merges with a new-right position. The first group are liber who have “seen the dark’ and now doubt wiheth contemporary policy technologies can keep up with gro citizen demands on government (Rose. 1980}. The secon: group are conservatives whose opposi more to new-righ ang theoretical model ze theery (WY Dioergences Id also note those viewpoints in Fi between which there are no overlaps. As we might expect, Mare and the new-right remain quite distinet in their arguments although there are some isolated points of convergence worth Femarking. For example, both approaches cress 4508 Theories of the State 1 on pre-capitalist or traditional ically renewed in market term, capitalism depends in part upé ch are_not_autom creating a reclegitimation problem of sectfeance ~ the declining moral stock of capi ssgifcanes pproaches tend to explain political phenomena eee more interesting. than ie, Maniamine divorce is the lack of any overlap be=y pluralism and Naratsm. Neosluralism is undoubtedly close to M Sin some key respects, phrticularly n of business predominar.ce under polyarchy. But co-pluralists argue that Marxism's wholesale Sf libera! democracy are misplaced) and tendentious. T) mani reality of historical experience of Stal Soviet and East European systems casts a lengthy shadow, to impugn the fundamertal importance of preserving liberal democracy over changing the mode of production. The dislocdtion and transition costs. of revolutionary change seem unacckptable in themselves, and grossly disproportionate to the iberating achievernents of state socialist systems Some Marxist thinkers may still come to accept completely iberal democracy as valuable and inescapably permane! element in the peaceful. trans m, a claim advanced on behalf of some: Western Eurocommunists and some East European socialist dissidents during the 1970s. But for Marxists the horrors of Stalinism have always been balanced (at least in part) by what they see as the disreputable history of ‘reformism' and ‘revisionism’ Western left, with its chronicle of sccialists who endorsed the pointless mass slaughter of the First World War or counselled ineffective resistance to fascism and Nazism. These potent ghosts have so far kept most Western neo- Marxists, however unorthodox their views, from renouncing the necessity of a social revolution in the transition to socialism. the new right remain quite | reflecting the polarization within contemporary beral views following the erosion of confidence in Keynesian mactoreconomics and the welfare state consensus. Neo- Pluralists see new-right views as 2 potent but antediluvian ist thinker is likel here. few equalizing or! Summing Up the State Debate 327 ng of long-dead economists and social Philosophers quoted in specious justifcation by businessmen grubbing for government contracts. farmers depzndent on state subsidies and price supports, and higher income tax- avoiders preaching self-hel ance. Publ formal models, extreme ndedness of politicians tight explanations beyond the realm of \ recognize as serious academic deb: newsright a contemporary capi position of busines corporatism as fellow-trav 7.3 Common themes in theories of the state We now turn to 2 different but equally import: resemblance detween all five theories_of the stat some very similar modes of responding to commot have been developed (Table 7.1). (i). Cipher madeis stress that the state is a passive mect TABLE 7.1 Cipher, guardian and partisan images in the five theories of the state Cipher mage NEw RIGHT ELITE THEORY External conta! Liberal corparatiet ede! née! MARXISM. Instrumentalist. Funerignalist, NEO. Profesionalized — — PLURALISM ——soharehs mode! state made! 4 that jcal sphere, and Fore ein cial ately ower hes with _groups_in_ cht _SE ie pont ire av exogenous leadership imput fo operat ey thrash around ano ee differ : I control in 4 tions require “nanser. Of course fe see this focus of external J power rests arty poles, i a weathervane, evailing social winds £0 akguration of public policies. Different “Interests win dilferent issues, and the jliey record the multiple groups Sebbles wth the Pe aot he aid gradutione OT prESUrE TO Which a democra significance demandaside. model citizens’ abilities 10 direct state_policy-— ng are introduced as a Eeristes of political choice mechanisms ~ such a° the ing together of issues in electoral competition, and the ing a single iy to express graduated preferences in casting a sing! oliticians and interest group leaders further compound — eg. by bidding up voters’ expectations, ¢ political-business cycle, or log-rolling. So ¢ remains demand-responsive, political “ormally produce a number of ‘emergent effects" 961), 1.€. unintended and undesired conse: te gr In elite thecr accounts a cipher model implies external by socially or economical way lo theorists see only a 0 control status groups differentially organized a manipulating the liberal democratic process Business cliiee ut social closure are obviously one candidate for this role models broaden out the concept of ‘elite’ to appli 0 apply the ishole managerial strata of advaneed industrial socety. Exthas 3), the state resembles nut a freely swinging weathers ang bata tree bent over by the prevailing wind (© a permanently result of the inherent _— state personnel’s view of the social interest, or to achiev impersonalls threaten to induce cr are explained system requirements, and not by reference tu the m as an equa Summing Up the State D lop-sided structure, one which cannot rearranged, excep: by its breakdown and ea Marxist instrumentalists The ‘state monopoly capi influence to a dominant class fractioi tightly integrates interventions and-advances ius inter fract Last polyarchy model In one aspect of its operations the szate in operates in 2 polyarchical way to accommodate confitcting social interests, particularly by creating interactive de making systems involving multiple agencies. But at a deeper level the privileged position of business implies that questions about the mode of production, which determine many other secondary issues, are excluded from practical citizen debate which incorporated @ ‘dual polity’ image eral democracy or resolution, (ii) The guardian :mage of the liberal democratic state sees it 4s an autonomous institutional force capable of rebalancing the sogial pressures actirg upon it, either co fix in with the y configuration which is appropriate for long- public p societal development. Such state activities normally enta readjusting public policy in favour of socially non-dom:nan Possibly even latent or disorganized, interests In some variants of the guardian view state organization: ars by people trving 1 maw here equal public : intention: Th other variants, nonds uonally in terms of their conior-r cersion of the guardian model se: ng force which restructures social arrangements 330 Theories of the State in favour of the socially and econo: because of these groups’ much eres ly powerles groups, politics, especially by voting influence in input socialization of politicians ag UUM: In aden Rt ditficulty of steering social developmen, od, the genuine Public interest orientation amongst palin reece 2 strong By contrast, the newsright’s varias makers an abstract wel . ant of ¢ suntdian zing model, 2 an state is rather than an empirical pieture of erotica BOSS democracies. It makes no explich ntemporary I not entail social and economic cig ization need fare-maximi Dn redistribu reformist. interventions may welfare by sti ste and redistribution, beeause ing incentives to work hard, sues nego novate, In addition, governmeny afloca nent nificantly less efficient than made aay eee operations. So an optimal form of state Should be limited b a restrictive ‘fiscal constitution’, voting rules series extraordinary majorities, and socializing the public o expen governments to play a minimal welfare role, Rather when trying to produce greater equality or to engage in direc social engineering, the state should cok Jo guarantee the free exercise of neutral rights, leaving substaftive social outcomes to be shaped by the innumerable decisipns of he market, State intervention only takes place to. correct distortions in the exercise of rights (as when public goods would otherwise be grossly under-supplied) of to manage unforeseen conflicts between different rights The cite theary image of the guardian state is the liberal corporatist view, which argues that a closed process of accommodation between government, business and other institutional elites directs strategict policy in line with shared conception of the national interest. In advanced industrial states contemporary Tol (eat abe governing elites to secure active co-opefation from the acer, Sf other organizational blocs controlling fey économs stt Social resources, Liberal corporatismapréducss © rt, ideology, stressing national economic success R000) 18" competition and a restrictive Coy ment ta enforce which major interest blocs help the gop Summing Up the State Debate 331 i cxplanaions, Public polices wich. con ion are interpreted as functional fc survival and development of capi as a guardian use ‘creased importance in ad ‘Ges of managing cultural developmen: as weil as economic change or the labour process. The neo-pluzalist version of the guardian state views government as a technocracy socialized by proirssi ing and value systems making modern government expert bureaucracies reflects strong fun: diffi y of guiding societal development int neo-pluralists also believe that explana’ the guardian state are essential, framed in terms of the particular dispositions of the personnel in the new professionalized technos:ructure The image regards the liberal democratic s as like"all other social actors, advancing the inst interests or personal welfare of the organizations individuals which compose it. However, the state is constrained and must bargain with other social forces to achieve favourable outcomes for public agencies or officials, ‘The state acts on its awn behalf, rather than steiving for public interest outcomes or operating in: ineluctable functional logic. For pluralists who take this view the partisan state is 2 selfinterested and powerful broker, bringing diverse so interests to co-operate, but also using leverage to arrai public policy in line with state officials’ interests. U this brokering activity implies a conservative preference for piecemeal change from the status quo, which is not automatically publicinterested, nor direct led by elected. pol internal group. Ensuring that publ ional Ye with some policy advances social Sh = lo Ba ee eee 332. Theones of the State | welfare entails continuous organizational redesign so as to maintain some congruence between organizational interests inside government and citizen preferences Thenew right’s supply-side model offers a simpler version of the partisan state, centring on budget maximization by government agencies. Bureaucracies manipulate informatio and bend political imperatives so as to adpance the individual paar Ps 1€8 so as to adfance the individual private sector oper. increased defic indicators tha Elite theory's autonomous state mbdel offers less a single-track picture, Political leaders and pol administrators have complex and many-sided prefe structures. Where the goals of state personnel conflict with external social interests, intefnal state preferences in policy-making. Where such diferences are m als’ preferences nonetheless determine the detailed development of policy. ‘The Marxist view of the state as partisan is provided by conception of Bonapartism transition period from capitalism to soci arbiter model sees a general role for a st autonomous state capable of organizing diferent frac: capital behind a strategy attuned to the needs of the domin: frac: of capi other classes into ‘There is no neo-pl partisan bargainer models. These thematic continuities ress state express apparen lamental on walable for ch Oulference available for characterizing governmen. pretation within each theory ear" e track three questions, for which each theory generates 199 o feasible answers (Table 7 2) Summing Up the State Debate 333 JS taste72 of variation within theories of the state Key dimensions Considerable Severe Low High es stare in rel All cipher models reg state as a weak actor operating in an environment of strongly organized interes's, while ali versions of the gua! see the state aia strong actor in an environme social forces are either weakly organized, segmented, or balanced against cach other. In partisan dargainer models the state is again seen as a powerful agency, but gm an environment of strongl, organized ightforward process, sare weakis develope ole snglestack avenues out ¢ thar them On the conirary sctively in reordering: satterns ene 334 Theories of the State an altogether more pessimistic view. A strong state is needed to cope with intractable policy-making problems. Decision- makers are typically pushed to the limits of available policy technologies, and concerted social action is needed to manag. these problems at any level, let a a way which can deliver redistributive or creative ‘public interest’ outcomes. lof How self-interested are state agencies’ operati Cipher models are characteristieally silent on the Ewen to which state officials promote their own self-inter state is @ weak social agency, behaving passively in an environment of strong external influences, then it has no capability for independent action in its own interest anyway Guardian and partisan approaches adopt polarized positions the first group asserting a capacity for relatively disinterested other-regarding action by the state se resolution of social problems, and the second immediately self-interested inspiration undei interventions. 7.4 Evaluating rival theories of the state endorsed view of sc sciences is dominated at any one single pattern of explanation, in terms of which applicable natural laws can be formulated as testable hypotheses. Scientific enquiry proceeds by trying to fal these hypotheses. Only propositions continuous testing of their derived accorded a measure of conditional 1972; Stove, 1982). Some éritics of this mainstream model suggest that a dominant pattern of explanation or ‘paradigm is often adhered to irrespective of evidence that it cannot Pe for a series of ‘puzzles’ or anomalies. Only when (2) Popper, 1963. the eviflence of anomalies reaches a certain critical mass, and (b) an’ alternative paradigm which can explain an equally wide range of phenomena as the ald is formulated, does the scientific community as a whole change its methods of explanation ~ in a sudden, radical paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962, 1970). Other critics’ suggest that scientific enquiry ya aes Ae. we OK Gun we Summing Up the Stote Debate 335 consists of a process of attrition between Programmes’, each of which surrounds certain untestable core’ propositions with an insulating layer of empirical experimentation and derived hypotheses. Scientific debate takes two forms. At the level of specifics ri thought attack their opponents’ empirical i attempt to strengthen their own; and at a scientists debate with each other about which research Programmes can be considered ‘progressi throwing up novel ‘ac “research nese phi ) Each of our five theoretical approach can be said 10 The conditions ees. are unter to envisage, especially as theor overlap cach other (see pp. 322-5) has there ever been a single dominant parad: analysing liberal democracies. Of course there hav USA. But throughout this period ‘heresies’ with comparable intellectual statas and empirical support challenged the mainstream view. Since the late 1960s pluralist hegemony has collapsed, although pluralism itself has not. Especi Western Europe, where the scape of practical pol | ™m more applica ly the idea of Unkno’ A88888ing those programmes winch ae ate hithert unknown ‘facts’. But none of th cries of : an select some aspects of social phenomens og interesting or problematic. wht] ‘ while simply negl areas. There is no prospect of coneie ee whi in political oni S219 i explanatory power. Nordo repr ee Propositions of from direct chal differences of values, inter: Upplied disputes between different theories ofthe stems quick INSEE appeals to core propositions (such as the Public choice theory claim that rational action gusumedes eee coo model human behaviour, 3 Sab 3 assertion of the corrosive effects soci relations cn human ests and ethics. Even very of capit 1 sciences gener sis and the soci inherently ~multistheoretical acuvltics, “tng eee TaIrel, Concepts (such as ‘the state’ or ‘democracy likely to be fiercely, though perhaps hot ‘essentially’ eontesned (Gallic, 1959). In evaluating theories of the state vou fake Feader) must decide for yourself’ between competing approaches based on different values, elaborated in distinctive and incompatible theories, anc appealing to zonficting evidence (Figure 7.2). Yet we shal try to demonstrate tnat this multi-level ‘choice by no meays reduces all disputes in ical analysis to ‘value-judgements’ pre ivists contend). There is plenty of scope for meaningful debate between rival theoretical approaches, and empirical research must play a decisive role proving our knowledge of how complex social and politial processes operat Summing Up the State Debate 337 Values: broad waye of lacking a the wort aa "deologiea! commitments Peet lor puniculariivlec of ecpnonen = Theoret logiely consistent set of analytic propositions nt mers general ~ Producing non-obvious conclusions FIGURE 7.2 Relations between values, dicories and evidence i Values Ax ihe level of values it may not be possi extended rational ble to have an argument between people uf dif Nalues_ express convictions and (S3i upon empirical suppor. In. po Ne counter-factual claims about what would eumstances other than those hich in fact Peetu er are values necessarily consictent. It is perfen Possible for someone to hold values which analyse shen: in different ways of su ABest Contradictory responses to ‘There are five components of values relevare ses the state (Figure 7.2): Persuasions. V. ém memes att CCR NE OCCT N OL | 338 Theories of the State re’ (also known as X the heart of each make-up and driving force ofthe humen cena such as the proposition that ‘mg is a social ae ghat “man is born free but everywhere he isin chang! Core moral values indicate how particular theories ot the state arc related to wider systems{of morality, Political associations indicate holw theories of the state connect up with practical political mapemente {iv} Selections of social phenomend ss ‘problematic’ indicate how wri approaches select aspects of op ws about ‘human nai sophical anthropologies" hheory of the state. They crysts basi interesting’ of ters in different analytic the political process for consideration. Where theqfies of the state disagree about the importance of being able to expl enomena, their disputes often cannot bi reconciled by ical or empirical arguments preferences for particular styles of explanation reflect competing methodologital priorities. Some approaches emphasize their ability to understan categories of social phenomena stress that analysing liberal democratic politics is on component in a macro-social explanation prepared to sacrifice some element of empirical accuracy in return for theoretical generality. Some philosophers of argued that ‘parsimony. in construction’ should be a neutral criterion for eval different scientific approaches. In practice, commitment 40 generality or parsimony in explan y demands a value-choice. components shows that they vary greatly in the importance they ascribe to an explicit view of human nature (Table 7.3 ‘thin the new-right approach public choice theory rests 'pen the ‘rational man’ model of economics, in which people are abstract utility maximizers (Hollis and Nell, 1975) Contrast, the Austrian variant has a more substanti Sonception of humanity as a knowledge-producing species, a drive with which only some forms of society are fully we OSG Comparing our five theories of the state on these value- Surming Up the State Debate 399 compatible, Marxism rests on a. si ‘everyone has the capacity to act fre wely if Rogiplutionary change can liberate them ffom oppreseee social structures, such ty and the dominance rms. Habermas's neo-Marxism stresses a in human activity between labour and the productive , on the one hand, and commun and creativity in social interactions on the other. By canary Classical lite theory rests on ‘a more pessininie aid differentiated view of human nature. Non-ational elemencs in human behaviour (‘crowd psychology) lead most people to sublimiate theizind.viduality into a mass willing to foe strong leaders in directors antipathetic to their ows intents, especially in crisis periods. Piurai leave their view of hi For neo-plur. uuman nature mor sts human ng, and an evolutionary imperative to handle increased social con plexity. Conventional pluralisis underline the diversizy of human motive argue (against ¢ssica. political philosophy) that only ‘minority of people accord dominant priority t0 pe participation compared th their private people's multiple :nterests are likely ‘find primary expression in family-, homes, wor ure-centred activities, The cote moral values indifferent theories of the state alsa diverge (Table 7.3). For conven ‘quality and economic liberty are almost equally important core values, The sew right clear and restrictively defined variants include welfar Marsism’s fundame beneath the den fs. In this views Spal primacy to freedom rights, although some public choice maximization as a secondary value ntal moral values are not easy 10 vunciation of all existing moralities as ideological masks for class interests. But the Marxist view of hhuman nature seems to place primary emphasis ‘upon free creativity v which humanity could achieve under a fut communist socie:y. Neo-plural development of haman capacities as a basic value, but since social guidance capacities ha ve such importance in the advanced industrial stete, they ofien appear to attach inti value to system adaptation and modernization, a. tr particularly clear in Lukmann (1979) | | a ; TABLETS 69 How five theories ofthe state view the componente af val evidence in social science explanations c Feat Toc Fear Warm Wasp 9 Sie ainee tay saa Papiacces asain : aS ses atch ? (6) Core ma ac a fat Freon rights (mpi, Ethers (ovo: sem (since fapaion) Helo Pea Henne Varied Genuintecat Wraps te Power diepstiiot Compliance, ; = Scene Se Frodoction clas Itertonnetons Scan Boveen pes (3), pcre or mpi gies She'atpsascan” Rew Syst emvineat t. mai via emp inert nda realism Spinnin of complex social ote TOIZESige Theor Plena un Discndaiowat tsa a Some pe snes Reece ton ww Lamecca Stroy ae ote BSGha Shay Hid or sie BEboray Me, Sere tng RAR nt seis predicts dita SY Ao tneveR Einar Saar “— oem mia —— 342 Theories of the State tical positions a he state are not as (Table 7.3) * Positions are the most res Ssociated wi implications, The ways in which problems for analy: Pluralists are preo Pp new ‘sis are more dich (Table a ccupied with input pol a tical behaviour, and short-term’ deci ight focuses ‘on rational-man assumptions including the prospects of reaching 4p and how to explain outcomes cm are sub-o welfare terms, Elite theorists are obsessdd with the phenomena of power, organization, compliance and| regime change. Marxists tend to focus on epochal changes politics, the shifts in modes of production, and tha diverse forms in whic they see class conflict made manifdst. Neo-pluralisis also grapple with long-term socio:political trends, but focus on the interconnections between economic and political systems. and the difficulties of rationally directing public palic. outputs. : In terms of their preferred styles! of explanation pluralists place a premium on achieving a very close fit betwee: theoretical models and political Phenofmens narrowly defined Elite theorists’ most consistent trait| isa, cynical version of empirical realism which emph: f rule across apparently very dissimilar polttical sy right public choice theory by contrast downgrades the immediate application of their models, arguing that deductive and parsimonious theories based on rational actor assumptions Summing Up the are valuable in cevealing gic underiv variations in political phenomena, and in allow! explanations of economic and pol They also dwe and lysis. Maesist_ approa: generalized pattern of explanation, ut span a Ist economics and polities, since all aspects of soci story, ani ambitions towards a consistent under’ social systems are, by contrast, more mode: Theories Theories are rel way in which the social world works, ‘They are usually ina rela experience, multiple diffe eories have to mect certain canons wh recognia; across different approaches, of which logical con: the most important criterion. Demonstra clements of a si is a central acti is usually dai Neweright pul theory and Marxism make the strongest cl achieved rigorous logical consistency, although ectical logic’ makes n especially diffe m and emphasize complex, mulu-valent explanations little effort to demonstrate that all elements of thei fix tightly together. These differences reflect variat three factors: the ways in which theories of the stat assumptions, analysis and evidence; the stress which diffe approaches give to testability; and their producing ‘novel facts’ (Table 7.3), These factors are now elaborated, {i) In different ways pluralism, elite theory: and sessing, CoP pom B44 Theories of the State | | universal propositions. 'gument is chal then the accuracy of its predictions and the ce: assumptions can both be dire approaches emphasize that deductiye. theories can: usefully constructed in the social sciences because at ity of causal processes fe the absence of controlled experiments where only a fewhvariables are allowed to Ructuate at a time, and the difficulty bf atfributing fal in explanation ion with deduct e dodels 7 By contrast, all public choice theory stresses that theore! work should proceed by making a small number of specified assumptions, constructing further steps in the argument via logical deduction, and slibmitting the whole chain of reasoning io the test by producing a small number of empirical hypotheses. If these predictions survive attempts at fal then, on the Friedman model, we may say pro the assump were true. Give: of nking assumptions unambiguously with particular predi of falsifving hole chains of eases approach low for direct scrutiny of assum hers argue that at no stage assumptions directly (see pp. 87-8) Marnist approaches offer reasoning. Using generated by historic to produce universa! may be preferred, fempt 10 disguise t be exposed, rapeutic consequences. for understanding. Within Marxism controversy continues to surround the frequent claims that the core works of Marx, Engels or sometimes Lenin have achieved a ‘scientific’ status ior to other kinds of analysis (sce pp. 218-19) (ii) Unlike values, theories should also be empirically testable (Table 7.3). Any theory that is not to be true by Summing Up the State Debate 345 definition must be abie to specify some empirical conditions under which it could be refuted. If a theory cannot conceivably be refuted, then it is tautological. However is not to say that what should count as fa s obvious or uncontroversial, nor that terms for any approach, as pos Pluralist, elite theory and neo-plura employ an inductive approach co ir analyses are typical al analysis and rarely counter: to be more insistent on empirical accuracy to and to regard a lack of fit a theory. By corclassical ec: ions should be assessed not by direct Consequently they ard vests other people’s work, phenomena a5 falsily theory follows other bra y central role, 2 less important. means of approach Marvisis many func configuration of favourzble for approaches gener tegrate and re-express our exis way, and to produce seme conclusi Tins criterion is a very weakened form of L. that ‘progressive’ research programmes predict ‘novel faci’. In gener: extrapolate from previous experience are better at cov existing knowledge than at generating novel predic luralism is particularly close to ‘common:se: J events; and its-crienta detailed, short-term explanation means that sume p explanations can seem to ‘redescribe’ phenomena rather th 446. Theories of the State c insights New-right ies, since the ions easily, eve untypical situations and are rarely Although new-right ev need not checked, authors guise a 'realiny” F research oft a cohesive elite manipulating pol evidence of disparate social conflicts struggle, is ‘novel’ chiefly because it implausible. Ata macro-level Marxism elas ot predictive, buta great deal of scope for differencinterorettiars of evidence exists, protecting the core theory itll iron refutation. Neo-piuralists make only a weak appearance distinction in calling attention to macro-social trends, their accounts operate inductively and are chief orientated to explanation. Some work in this tradition by economists is more predictive. wage of class 50. tendentio Empincal evidence The evidence relevant for academic political analysis is of misunderstood. Public debate about political cvents oft focuses on anecdotes about individual aspects of the pol process, Fuclled by reured pol nemores Investigative journalism, these controversrs all assume tha! Somewhbre there exists a ‘real’ (because inside) story The research evidence needed to evaluate theories of the en of a qualitatively different character from the mages relevant to practical politics, for three main reasons ( 73), ystematically Research evidence must be co! ene et “Isolated observations are of little ot _ bs else selected in the data must either be comprehensive 0 no & Produce res, i i sumptions of the anal 3 generate dr weeds to be inepeeted of b fesearch approach is generally ape-- ie needs to be assessed serarch focus could nave affectes “t+ ve The significance of parsicular findings needs 12 o> .

    You might also like