The “state” is
one of the most important and enduring concepts in the study of politics. Its philosophic
and historical conception can be traced to the writings of Plato (arising out
of man’s lack of self-sufficiency), Aristotle (state for political animals), St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas (state as a divine institution), Machiavelli (state as instrument of power), and Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau (state
and social contract). It was defined
and redefined alongside the development of political science as an area of
inquiry. In the early part of 20th century, the “Germanization” of
the discipline popularized the Weberian notion of the state as an entity
exercising a monopoly of “coercive authority” (violence) over a given territory
which must be anchored on the process of legitimation. The
modern state has been accorded with four key features: a defined territory, a
permanent population, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into
relations with other states (internal and external sovereignty).
Post-war political science witnessed the rejection
of the concept of the state as a theoretical concept. Peter Bentley argued that
is too ideological to be used as an organizing concept. Meanwhile, Michael Mann
(Autonomous Power of the State) wrote that the state is withering away in the
face of political authority, political administration and society. In 1950s,
behavioralists like David Easton (The Political System, 1953) and Gabriel
Almond (Politics of Developing Areas, 1960) replaced the state with the concept
of “system” saying that the former is imbued with many meanings and cannot be
operationalized. For Nettl[1], since
the state is a product of continental European political science, it is not
applicable to the study of other countries.
Despite the hyperglobalists’s
declaration of the decline, erosion and “end of the nation-state”[2]
due to forces of global capitalism[3],
the state remains the significant, if not the primary, actor in international
relations. It is being enhanced and reinforced due to the process of
internationalization which requires the acquiescence of the states.[4]
For skeptics, globalization has been used as an
“ideological device by politicians and theorists who wish to advance a
market-orientated economic agenda”.[5]
Occupying the middle ground, the ‘transformationalists” argue that
globalization has indeed transformed some of the functions of the state (in its Westphalian
sense) but not everything, especially as the final arbiter and negotiator in
international treaties/relations.[6]
[1] Nettl, J.P. 1949.
"The State as a Conceptual Variable," World Politics, 20 (July 1949): 559-592.
[2] Ohmae, K. (1990) The Borderless World: Power and
Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. London: Fontana.; Ohmae, K. (1995) The
End of the Nation-State: The Rise of Regional Economies. New York: Free
Press.
[3] Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: The
Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[6] Held, D., A.McGrew, D. Goldblatt and J. Perraton
(1999) Global Transformations. Cambridge:Polity Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment