Back in the Day, there were two ways of thinking (or ignoring) the State: Structure-functionalist (neo-Marxist) views Some see it as an instrument of class rule, others as an objective guarantor of production relations or economic accumulation, and still others as an arena for political class struggles. Nearly all theories retained deeply embedded centered assumptions states are inherently shaped by classes or class struggles – and function to preserve and expand modes of production. This makes it difficult to assign causal weight to variations in state structures and activities across nations and short time periods, thereby undercutting the usefulness of some neo-Marxist schemes for comparative research. Pluralist views or Input-Output: was viewed primarily as an arena within which economic interest “Government” groups or not mative social movements contended or allied with one another to shape the making of public policy decisions. Those decisions were understoodto be allocations of benefits among demanding groups. Research on the societal to government and on the distributive effects of governmental “inputs” Government itself was not taken very seriously as an independent “outputs”. actor and in comparative research, variations in governmental organizations were deemed less significant than the general shared by the political “functions” systems of all societies. Weber and the state: Weber agued that states are compulsory associations claiming control over territories and the people within them. Administrative, legal, extractive, and coercive organizations are the core of any state. These organizations are variably structured in different countries, and they may be embedded in some sort of constitution-representative system of parliamentary decision making and electoral contests for key executive and legislative posts. Alfred Stepan summarizes Weberian perspective: The State must be considered as more than the It is the continuous “government”. administrative, legal, bureaucratic and coercive systems that attempt not only to structure relationships between civil society and public authority in a polity but also the structure many crucial relationships within civil society as well. The Autonomy and Capacity of States States conceived as organizations claiming control over territories and people may formulate and pursue goals that are not simply reflective of the demands or interests of social groups, classes, or society. This is what is usually means by autonomy”. “state States as Actors:
Back in the Day, there were two ways of thinking (or ignoring) the State: Structure-functionalist (neo-Marxist) views Some see it as an instrument of class rule, others as an objective guarantor of production relations or economic accumulation, and still others as an arena for political class struggles. Nearly all theories retained deeply embedded assumptions – states are inherently shaped by classes or class struggles and function to preserve and expand modes of production. This makes it difficult to assign causal weight to variations in state structures and activities across nations and short time periods, thereby undercutting the usefulness of some neo-Marxist schemes for comparative research. Pluralist views or Input-Output: “Government” was viewed primarily as an arena within which economic interest groups or not mative social movements contended or allied with one another to shape the making of public policy decisions. Those decisions were understoodto be allocations of benefits among demanding groups. Research centered on the societal “inputs” to government and on the distributive effects of governmental “outputs”. Government itself was not taken very seriously as an independent actor and in comparative research, variations in governmental organizations were deemed less significant than the general “functions” shared by the political systems of all societies. Weber and the state: Weber agued that states are compulsory associations claiming control over territories and the people within them. Administrative, legal, extractive, and coercive organizations are the core of any state. These organizations are variably structured in different countries, and they may be embedded in some sort of constitution-representative system of parliamentary decision making and electoral contests for key executive and legislative posts. Alfred Stepan summarizes Weberian perspective: The State must be considered as more than the “government”. It is the continuous administrative, legal, bureaucratic and coercive systems that attempt not only to structure relationships between civil society and public authority in a polity but also the structure many crucial relationships within civil society as well. The Autonomy and Capacity of States States conceived as organizations claiming control over territories and people may formulate and pursue goals that are not simply reflective of the demands or interests of social groups, classes, or society. This is what is usually means by “state autonomy”. States as Actors:
skopkol%20state%20summary.docx