Theories of the State

The state can not prevent the existence of universal ethical claims that are included in  its regime but not represented in it. Alain Badiou's philosophy is devoted to these claims and defends them as forms of political truth striving for validity and representation.

With contributions from:
Alain Badiou, Lorenzo Chiesa, Oliver Feltham, Dominik Finkelde, Gernot Kamecke, Paul M. Livingston, Rado Riha, Frank Ruda, Arno Schubbach, Yannis Stavrakakis, Alberto Toscano and Jan Völker.
Editor:
Dominik Finkelde is professor of philosophy at the Munich School of Philosophy.

La siguiente reflexión apunta a introducir algunos aspectos relevantes
de las teorías marxistas sobre el estado que se dieron a partir de la década
de 1960, particularmente, aquellas que catalizaron y cimentaron
lo que posteriormente conoceremos como enfoque estratégico relacional.
Se afirma que este enfoque tiene su génesis en las discusiones
que inició Nicos Poulantzas contra otras visiones marxistas del estado
y que luego han sido desarrolladas y complementadas por el teórico
Bob Jessop. Se resaltan algunos aspectos innovadores de este enfoque
a fin de comprender la cada vez más compleja trama de relaciones
que tienen curso en el estado contemporáneo.

The following reflection aims to introduce some relevant aspects of
the Marxist theories about the State that arose from the 1960s on, particularly
those that catalyzed and founded what we will later know as
the relational strategic approach. It is claimed that this approach has
its genesis in the discussions that Nicos Poulantzas initiated against
other Marxist views of the state and that have later been developed
and complemented by the theorist Bob Jessop. Some innovative aspects
of this approach are highlighted in order to understand the increasingly
complex web of relationships that take place in the contemporary
State.

Like all other nations Nigeria aspires to greatness but over five decades after Independence still ranks very low on all parameters of good governance. The objective of the paper is to examine the concepts of leadership, participatory democracy and good governance, evaluate their significance as components of the development process and articulate the implications of their absence from the administration of public institutions. The paper argues that all three elements are missing from the development process in Nigeria. Systems Analysis or systems theory as enunciated by David Easton is adopted as the theoretical framework. Methodologically the study relies mainly on secondary historical sources of data collection. The paper is significant for its identification of the need for these concepts as guiding principles of the development process in Nigeria. The scope of the paper is Nigeria as a whole from Independence in 1960 till date. It draws the conclusion that Nigerians must insist on good leadership, participatory or inclusive democracy and good governance from their leaders at all levels.

"With increasing globalization, the meaning and role of the nation-state are in flux. At the same time, state theory, which might help to explain such a trend, has fallen victim to the general decline of radical movements, particularly the crisis in Marxism. This volume seeks to enrich and complicate current political debates by bringing state theory back to the fore and assessing its relevance to the social phenomena and thought of our day. Throughout, it becomes clear that, whether confronting the challenges of postmodern and neo-institutionalist theory or the crisis of the welfare state and globalization, state theory still has great analytical and strategic value.

Contributors: Clyde W. Barrow, U of Massachusetts, Dartmouth; Richard A. Cloward; Adriano Nervo Codato, Federal U of Paraná, Brazil; Bob Jessop, Lancaster U, UK; Andreas Kalyvas, U of Michigan; Rhonda F. Levine, Colgate U; Leo Panitch, York U; Renato Monseff Perissinotto, Federal U of Paraná, Brazil; Frances Fox Piven, CUNY; Paul Thomas, U of California, Berkeley; Constantine Tsoukalas, U of Athens."

Düzenleme Okulu 1970 sonrasında gelişmeye başladı. Başlıca temsilcileri M. Aglietta, A. Lipietz, R. Boyer, ?. Mazier ve M. Vroey' dir. İlk inceleme konularını fordizm, kitle üretimi ve tüketimi, krizler ve kapitalizmin dönüşümü oluşturmaktadır. Düzenleme Okulu kuramcılarının araştırdığı başlıca soru şudur: Kapitalizm, toplumsal antagonizmler ve krizler yaratmasına ve bu krizler sermaye birikiminin devamlılığını dönem dönem imkansız hale getirmesine rağmen hala nasıl varlığını sürdürebilmektedir ? 1 Bu, kapitalizmin dönüşümüne, sermaye ve emek arasındaki ilişkinin yeniden üretiminin tarihsel olarak nasıl

Nearly four centuries ago, liberal political thought asserted that the state was the product of a distant, prehistorical, social contract. Social science has done little to overcome this fiction. Even the most radical of theories have tended to remain silent on the question of the production of the state, preferring instead to focus on the determinations and functions of state actions. Bratsis argues that the causes of the state are to be found within everyday life. Building upon insights from social, political, and anthropological theories, his book shows how the repetitions and habits of our daily lives lead to our nationalization and the perception of certain interests and institutions as "public". Bratsis shows that only by seeking the state’s everyday, material causes can we free ourselves from the pitfalls of viewing the state as natural, inevitable, and independent from social relations."

“Peter Bratsis makes a significant contribution to our understanding of one of the most important political issues of our time—the nature and production of the state, and its relationship to the concrete realities of people’s lived experience. Offering a valuable rereading of marxist state- theory, he extends it in original ways to connect to the complexities and contradictions of contemporary political life.”
—Lawrence Grossberg, author of Caught in the Crossfire: Kids, Politics, and America’s Future (Paradigm, 2005)

“Peter Bratsis breaks new ground, forcing us to think of the connections between big structures and our most intimate inner lives. A fascinating and erudite book.” –Frances Fox Piven, CUNY

“This is an important theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of the state and state power. Arguing that we should not take the state too literally, as a simple fact of life, it shows how we can analyze the ways in which a heterogeneous web of social and political actors reproduce the state in its various moments through a variety of interconnected everyday practices. It will have a significant impact on how state is theorized and researched in many disciplines and, especially, in inter-disciplinary inquiries.”
—Bob Jessop, Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University

This article puts forward two main arguments. First, it highlights the relation between different phases of neoliberalism in Morocco together with the specific methods and techniques of urban government that were deployed in efforts to govern the slums and their populations. A period of roll back neoliberalism during the 1980s generated reforms that tried to increase government control over the urban territory to compensate for the negative social outcomes of structural adjustment. The subsequent period of roll out neoliberalism coincided with the attempt to manage and regulate the slum population as such, through new modalities of state intervention. Secondly, while evolutions in neoliberal government reflected a gradual process, this transition in Morocco was accelerated by security concerns following two severe moments of urban violence: the 1981 riots and the 2003 suicide bombings in Casablanca. Therefore, Morocco’s recent political transformations cannot be understood in terms provided by the mainstream narrative linking economic liberalization to democratization. Rather, it reflects a profound shift towards intrinsically authoritarian modalities of neoliberal government which are clearly revealed at the urban scale.

The primary task of this course is to introduce key sociological theories of the State to you. These theories try to explain how states come into being and the logic of their actions. In doing so, however, this course is motivated by a political concern: to what extent is it possible to radically transform the state in the direction of greater economic equality and political participation? Or is it simply impossible and we should think of organizational forms beyond the conventional State? (As you read the course material, always have this question in mind. Not only it is the question you are expected to answer in your final term papers but also as capable sociologists, your answers can help us all for a better future in these times marked by all sorts of crisis.)

The state was long seen as the only institution able to govern legitimately. The empirical limitations of statehood in many parts of the world, as well as the normative ambivalences inherent to statehood, however, have led to a renewed interest in the legitimacy of non-state governance. A prominent approach holds that non-state governance is legitimate if and to the extent that it contributes to normatively desirable outcomes, such as an increase in security. This chapter argues that this approach faces four problems that severely limited the scope of legitimate governance by non-state actors in areas of limited statehood. They concern the definition of goods, the inclusiveness of governance services, the accountability of non-state actors, and the reliable assignment of responsibilities. We contend that these problems highlight the need for public institutions and explore whether and how non-state actors can assume public roles under conditions of limited statehood.

The mass media has often been described as the bastion or watchdog of democracy, a set of public and private institutions that daily inundate large audiences with information, education, entertainment and national agenda setting by stimulating debate on various social, political and economic issues that could facilitate national development. The media is however part of the social milieu in which it operates. This paper examines the role of the media in a social formation characterised by class, ethnic and other social diversities like Nigeria. It argues that the media has a responsibility to look beyond the official clichés of balanced reporting, investigative journalism, objectivity and verification of facts before publication and focus on the higher virtue of defending the fundamental rights of the common people, economic democracy and the consistent exposure of official corruption, abuse of office and resource mismanagement as means of achieving sustainable economic development. Marxist Political Economy is adopted as the theoretical framework. The primary objective of the paper is to evaluate the historical role of the mass media in the struggle for economic freedom and sustainable national development as well as the exposure of anti-democratic and development-retarding public actions. The sources of data collection are mainly secondary. The paper concludes that the media needs to be constantly aligned with the poor and down-trodden who constitute the primary objects of development rather than the elite who have the capacity for extending gratification and patronage to media practitioners. A compromised media could constitute a clog in the wheel of national progress and sustainable development.

Kritik, Tilly’nin “Zor, Sermaye ve Avrupa Devletlerinin Oluşumu” ile Bourdieu’nun “Devlet Üzerine” kitapları üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Tilly’nin devlet olgusunu açıklamak amacına matuf olarak yazdığı kitabındaki görüşler ile Bourdieu’nun sözlü aktarım esaslarına göre düzenlenmiş derslerinin metinleştirilmesiyle oluşmuş kitabındaki görüşlerin ortaya konması ve kıyas edilerek kritiğe tabii tutulması zor bir eylemdir. Zira Tilly, yazmış olmasının verdiği bütünlüğe ve Bourdieu, konuşmuş olmasının verdiği dağınıklığa sahiptir. Mevzubahis durum en baştan yazarlar arasında okuyucunun bilerek veya bilmeyerek Tilly’e yönelmesine neden olmaktadır. Ancak iki ismin ortak çabası devleti zamansal ilişkilerin nedensel ilişki olduğu zannıyla açıklayan kuramlara, kavrayışlara ve izahlara karşı çıkarak kendi özgül ve çok katmanlı kuramlarını ortaya koymaktır. Modern Devlet olgusu kanaatimizce ancak Tilly ve Bourdieu birlikte anlaşıldığında kavranılmaya müsait hale gelmektedir. Zira ikisinin ortaya koydukları kuramlar, modern devletin fiziksel/maddi/şeyler dünyasındaki ve soyut/manevi/zihin dünyasındaki varlıklarını ortaya koyma kudretini haizdirler.

Critics express concerns over the theoretical pluralism in theories of the state and state power. This paper explores how organizational theories can provide more focus to theories of the state and state power thereby increasing their explanatory power. After summarizing concerns raised by political sociologists over pluralism in theories of the state and state power, the analysis focuses on existing theories of the state that employ concepts from organizational theory to understand the organizational state and its relationship to society. Particular attention is given to the state as a resource extraction and distribution mechanism, the resource dependent relationships among organizational entities inside and outside the state, and the power relations between states and organizations in their environment. This focus brings greater attention to the how groups, corporations, industries, and class fractions exercise power through organizations to influence the policy formation process. K E Y W O R D S organizational theory, power, resource dependence, theories of the state 1 | INTRODUCTION Theories of the state and organizational theories are typically considered separate and distinct. This paper moves beyond this divide by exploring how organizational concepts and perspectives can be incorporated into state theory to increase our understanding of the large and organizationally complex contemporary state. There are two main

Like all other nations Nigeria aspires to greatness but over five decades after Independence still ranks very low on all parameters of good governance. The objective of the paper is to examine the concepts of leadership, participatory democracy and good governance, evaluate their significance as components of the development process and articulate the implications of their absence from the administration of public institutions. The paper argues that all three elements are missing from the development process in Nigeria. Systems Analysis or systems theory as enunciated by David Easton is adopted as the theoretical framework. Methodologically the study relies mainly on secondary historical sources of data collection. The paper is significant for its identification of the need for these concepts as guiding principles of the development process in Nigeria. The scope of the paper is Nigeria as a whole from Independence in 1960 till date. It draws the conclusion that Nigerians must insist on good leadership, participatory or inclusive democracy and good governance from their leaders at all levels.

The Greater London Council (GLC) and the Metropolitan County Councils (MCCs), the directly elected tiers of metropolitan government in England, were abolished on 1 April 1986. This paper examines why the GLC was abolished. London local government was distinct. London is the largest UK metropolis, had the longest experience of dual-tier elected councils, and has had a metropolitan government with different functions from those exercised by the MCCs. But although the destinies of the GLC and MCCs were capable of being separated, understanding why the GLC was abolished does serve to explain why the MCCs were fated to die with it. Explaining the abolition of the GLC requires two levels of analysis t o be satisfactorily investigated. Exploration is required first of the intentions and interests of those who favoured abolition, and second of the structure (adminstrative, political, ideological and class) in which the Conservative government found abolition 'thinkable'. Four explanatory strategies are academically current and will be evaluated. The understanding provided by each strategy is made as defensible as possible before being criticized. The evidence for evaluating explanations is derived from interview and documentary data collected by the Greater London Group (Clegg er al., 1985). All the explanatory strategies, whilst illuminating, are shown to assume rational decision-making which does not match the evidence. The abolition of the GLC was a folly, best understood as an outcome of the Nietzchean style of the Thatcher government.

This book contains two arguments, one historical and the other theoretical. The historical argument seeks to explain the creation of the American regulatory state in the late nineteenth century; the theoretical argument examines the implications that high levels of voter ignorance have for democratic politics and the autonomy of modern states.
The historical argument examines how political and media elites helped build the American state’s bureaucratic regulatory authority in the final decades of the nineteenth century, and argues such authority initially emerged in the Treasury Department and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Although many scholars have examined conflicts over monetary policy and railroad regulation during the nineteenth century, I argue that autonomous elites created a new state to accomplish unpopular policy objectives, and that the state that emerged from these conflicts had lasting implications for American politics.
In addition to this historical argument, I develop a theory of the state that challenges widespread assumptions regarding the nature of political power in modern democracies. Although democracy is believed to ensure voters’ influence over modern politics, I argue that high levels of public ignorance grant democratic states significant autonomy from society, allowing implementation of policies that do not reflect social demands or preferences. By suggesting that voter ignorance may prevent societal control of the state, my theoretical argument challenges both commonsense assumptions regarding political power in modern societies and academic theories of democracy.

The evolution of states — chiefdoms and kingdoms — in Ig-boland, like in other societies in Africa, has been subjected to varying interpretations. For much of Igboland, the British warrant chief system has been ascribed as the source of kingship (ezeship) tradition though centralized states and monarchical heritages of Onitsha, Nri, Arochukwu, Osomari, Oguta, and other Igbo societies predated co-lonialism. 2 The stories of the origins of these centralized states among predominantly segmentary peoples, whose political institution was rooted in village republicanism and the principle of Igbo-Enwe-Eze (the Igbo have no kings), continue to fascinate historians. Aro history has been quite intriguing, and even more so is the origin of the Aro state. Predictably, the complex nature of the process of state formation in 1 Among the Igbo, the Aro were one of the most famous groups owing their notoriety not only to their great oracle — Ibini-Ukpabi — but also to their enviable skill in the formation and operation of a network of trading oligarchy, especially in slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries. In this essay, where appropriate, the name " Arochukwu " has been used interchangeably with the Aro state (chief-dom). Although a related version of this study was published elsewhere a few years back, the scope of this special issue on Igbo political history warrants that the pre-colonial evolution of kingship tradition and state formation in Igboland be revisited through the prism of the Aro.

This paper investigates how educated Jewish observers struggled to understand the causes of the global immigration restriction that so impacted East European Jewry in the 1920s and 1930s, and uses their competing explanations, convictions, and uncertainties to reveal underlying structures of Jewish political understanding in the interwar period more broadly. Efforts to explain restriction, the ways in which it seemed both to target Jews and to be part of a general closure of the developed world, and questions of timing demanded reflection on the most fundamental questions of the interwar political order. Did state policies flow from economic reason, and did nationalisation, democratisation, and socialisation of domestic politics alter this causal pattern? In a world where closed borders were the default, what difference did statehood or statelessness make? What was the meaning and implication of the deployment of "race" in others' debates about restriction, and what role did global race-thinking play in determining population policies? What was the causal significance of specifically anti-Jewish animus, its nature, and the role of Jews' own choices in determining their situation? Analyzing a number of loci of Jewish social policy debate, the essay focuses particularly on the diasporist emigration activist Il'ya Dizhur, the Zionist sociologist Aryeh Tartakover, and the cooperative-movement activist Majer Pollner.

The implementation of non-discriminatory sex legislation provides theoretical and empirical grounds to examine responses by the state to gender equality. Tracing the trajectory of one such law in the U.S.-Title IX-over a period of 40 years, this study analyzes the extent to which the state: (1) acted as a unitary body, and (2) functioned to dismantle its own oppressive gender features. By examining the federal government's three core branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), the study finds differential responses by branch, with the greatest variability expressed by the executive branch, revealing the state to be less than a coherent institution. The study also shows only modest efforts to enforce the law, raising doubts about the commitment of the state to transform the social relations of gender. The state's framing of gender equality exclusively in terms of non-discriminatory practices falls short of fostering changes in gender mentalities and identities in U.S. educational institutions-an outcome reflected in the persistent gender clustering of fields of study at the university level.

Like all other nations Nigeria aspires to greatness but over five decades after Independence still ranks very low on all parameters of good governance. The objective of the paper is to examine the concepts of leadership, participatory democracy and good governance, evaluate their significance as components of the development process and articulate the implications of their absence from the administration of public institutions. The paper argues that all three elements are missing from the development process in Nigeria. Systems Analysis or systems theory as enunciated by David Easton is adopted as the theoretical framework. Methodologically the study relies mainly on secondary historical sources of data collection. The paper is significant for its identification of the need for these concepts as guiding principles of the development process in Nigeria. The scope of the paper is Nigeria as a whole from Independence in 1960 till date. It draws the conclusion that Nigerians must insist on good leadership, participatory or inclusive democracy and good governance from their leaders at all levels.

Henri Lefebvre in his piece "Space and the State" examines questions of what are the types of space? How are these spaces produced? How does the state present itself in these spaces? And what are the production relations in these spaces? Being a Marxist Lefebvre urges upon the subject of production. This includes the production of spaces and the production in the spaces.