Table Of ContentConcepts in the Social Sciences
Mlm
A.
G. Ikenberry
Open University Press
Milton Keynes
Open University Press
12 Coleridge Close
Stony Stratford
Milton Keynes MKI1 BY
First Published 1989
Copyright © John A. Hall and G. John Ikcnberry 1989
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means, without written permission from the
publisher,
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Hall, John A. (John Anthony), 1949-
The state. Concepts in the social science.
1. State. Sociological perspectives
I. Title. II. lkenberry, G. John
III. Series
306'.2
ISBN 0-335-l5575-8
ISBN 0-335-15574-X (Pack)
Typeset by Scarborough Typesetting Services
Printed in Great Britain by J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd., Bristol
Contents
Ackrlowledgemenrs vii
1 Introduction: The State and Social Theory 1
2 The Origins of the State 16
3 The European Dynamic 22
4 The European Disaster 43
5 The Long Peace? 64
6 Conclusions 95
Notes 101
Select fiiblfography I 15
Index 122
Acknowledgements
Most of our principal intellectual debts are obvious from the text. In
addition, however, we want to thank the following friends and
colleagues, all of whom helped significantly in the preparation of
Hthaisg gbaordo,k : NMailcehraiee lK -Doyle, anka, MJeaffr yG oWoadtwerins,, DDaavviidd LSapikroe,, §Sli°tlec7p1h"aaEn:T
Mann, Theda Skocpoi, and Caroline Thomas.
Introduction: The State
and Social Theory
The period in which social science 'lost interest' in the state -
broadly speaking, those years in which the liberal Pax Americana
dominated minds as much as institutions -- is now over. The return
of scholarly concern with the state led initially to several rather
programmatic statements, many of which were formidably
obscure' Happily we are now better placed. It is easy, with the
advantage of a decade of state-centred social science explanations
behind us, to demonstrate the impact of the state, What is harder
but now possible is the creation of a more systematic view of the
state in history. Our general aim is to specify' the ways in which
states interact with other sources of power, the fact that the
character of those power sources has varied in history requires a
proper treatment of the state to have an historical dimension. We
are particularly concerned with the relationship between states and
capitalism and in the ways in which this affects political regimes and
:i
the stability of the international system. But before beginning to
trace the state's relationship with other power sources, we need to
devote considerable space to views of the state in classical and
contemporary social theory. This 'will give our account greater
richness. More importantly, our historically-grounded analysis will
enable us to look back at these theoretical traditions and to
adjudicate their claims.
The state defined
There is a great deal of agreement amongst social scientists as to
how the state should be defined? A composite definition would
include three elements. First, the state is a set of institutions; these
are manned by the state's own personnel. The state's most
2 The State
important institution is that of the means of violence and coercion.
Second, these institutions are at the centre of a geographically-
bounded territory, usually referred to as a society. Crucially, the
state looks inwards to its national society and outwards to larger
societies in which it must make its way; its behaviour in one area can
often only be explained by its activities in the other. Third, the state
monopolies rule making within its territory. This tends towards the
creation of a common political culture shared by all citizens.
No definition is perfect, some comments on the limitations of this
one are in order. Note immediately that the definition is at once
institutional and functional. History sometimes makes it necessary
to decouple this linkage. Thus in Latin Christendom in the early
European Middle Ages, many governmental functions - the
provision of order, rules of war and justice were provided by the
Church rather than by the puny and transient states which existed
within its boundaries To make this point implicitly reveals a very
great deal about the nature of our definition. Not all societies in
history have been controlled by a state. Chinese civilization was
usually controlled by a single state, but Latin Christendom was
never so controlled, modern capitalist society, within whose
boundaries most states now live, clearly has laws of development all
its own. Furthermore, states do not always possess complete control
over the means of violence, as feudal rulers knew all too well.
Equally obviously, it is not the case that those over whom states rule
always share a single culture. The conclusion to be drawn from this
is simple: fully-fledged 'staleness' has been an aspiration for every
state in history In consequence, the word "tends" which is now in
the third proposition of the composite definition above could be
appended to virtually every statement in the definition. Some states
have moved a considerable way from aspiration towards achieve~
rent, this was especially true of European states at the turn of the
century, as is evidenced by the fact that this composite definition is
based upon statements of their social scientists Most states of the
contemporary Third World, in contrast, comprise hope more than
reality: their citizens often do not belong to a single culture, that is,
they are not yet nation states, and they are only in the earliest stages
of creating an apparatus of state machinery.
It is important to highlight how complex is the notion of society
used so far. Social organizations and social identities may be larger
than the boundaries of states and may have some power over them,
equally the state may not be able to control all social groups which
Introduction 3
exist inside its own territory. In general, state power has gained as
other sources of power, notably ideological and military power,
have been territorialized. We pay great attention in this book to the
relations of states to capitalism because it has proved far harder for
states to territorialize economic power. This statement should not
be read naively: if the extensiveness of capitalism means that the
state's search for security is not total and complete, states do have
the possibility, if they can organize their citizenries, of enhancing
their position through acquiring the wealth that participation in the
global economy can bring.
Classical approaches to the state
Three classical theories, liberalism, Marxism and realism, have
made the most important contributions to understanding the state.
We examine them in turn, paying particular attention to their views
of the state as a force within society and as a.social actor in external
interactions with a larger world.
Liberalism
Liberalism is a protean doctrine, but its core idea is extremely
simple: the individual is held to be the seat of moral worth.6 State
activities inside a society were seen by liberals in more or less
sophisticated ways. A notably sophisticated view was that of Adam
of
Smith. In the third book of the Wealth Nations he described the
manner in which the spread of commerce, by allowing the feudal
aristocracy to spend its money on commodities rather than on
retainers, allowed for the emergence of the rule of law. The causal
chain of Smith's argument was complex and subtle: it was the
parcellization of sovereignty that took place upon the fall of Rome,
that is to say, a political factor, which gave birth to the autonomous
and productive city whose economic impact in undermining feudal
power was so great. This undermining was clearly welcomed by
Smith in and of itself." This theory of liberalism realized fully that
power has its own attractions, is capable of being abused and stands
in permanent need of being controlled. In other words, commercial
society was praised on the instrumental ground that it allowed for a
decent political system by replacing naked power with Ie dour
commerce."
Adam Smith is best known, however, for his insistence - made as
