Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to provide an overview of the different theories of the state, highlight the various reasons why there are different theories of the state, and finally, identify the most useful theory as well as providing a justification of the choice.
Theories forms the basis of explaining complex phenomenon in a more practical way, and as such the relations that exist in a nation-state can only be understood with the help of a theory. There exist different theories of the state such as pluralism, elite theory, classic Marxist theory, realism and corporatism (Barzel, 2002, p. 75).
The main proponents of the Pluralism are Talcott Parsons, Arnold Rose, Nail Smelser and Peter Bently. This theory is based on functionalism and its emphases are; stability, equilibrium, conservative perspective and gradual change. This theory maintains that societal power is widely shared, fragmented, decentralized and deriving from a number of sources (Duncan, 2009, p. 34).
It also opine that society consist of groups and associations that are many and diverse with conflicting interests that are balanced by the state, and as such the groups have considerable influences on major institutions and government policy. It also assumes a natural power balance among different groups coupled with democratic traditions, consensus of values, procedures and principles.
In addition, governmental and economic institutions are separate thus they are not overlapping sources of power. In this theory, the state performs roles which include; it represents institutionalized authority and power, it is the supreme guardian of democracy, it acts as the mediator or bargaining agent, as well as policing conflict of interest and promoting harmony to attain order and equilibrium (Dubbink, 2003, p. 179).
The second theory of the state is elite theory. This theory opine that the societal power rests in the hands of a few individuals who have power over key institutions resources, and at the same time the elite group are not accountable to the citizens. They derive their power from social organizations meaning that they possess a lot of power, and as such, they do anything to ensure that they retain power.
They theory opine that there is stratification in societies, the present power is utilized for societal welfare and benefit or for personal gain, there are one or other ruling elites, and that the powerful and the elite are the same.
The elites have such resources as cunning and skills, as well as intelligence, this variation sets them apart from the populace with the masses being characterized by incompetence, apathy and not able to govern themselves. In addition, the prevailing organizational complexities necessitate for a leader.
The relations that are built are in relation to power and wealth. For instance, power in United States rests in control of the Pentagon, that is, the state, the economy and the military (Smith, 1995, p. 91).
The third theory is classic Marxist theory, which maintains that individuals who have power over the means of production rule society. They further asserts that the main determinant of political phenomenon is the politics class basis, that individuals realize themselves through work, and the basis or foundation of the society is the economy.
It continues to maintain that political conflict equates to class conflict since political groups are composed of classes. In addition, economic dominance translates to power with power flowing from economic relations. The state performs functions such as; legitimizing and perpetuation of the existing social class system, and accumulating role, as well (Hay, Marsh & Liste, 2007, p. 53).
The other theory is realism. This theory maintains that there is a difference between the politics realm and ethics and moral principles realm. It also argues that the state has absolute power, single-minded pursuit of interest, national security and power. Objective laws rooted in human nature rule the society and politics.
Lastly, we have corporatism theory where the state is seen as the supreme central organ that is responsible for leading and directing society based on its directives. In addition, cooperation between the state, trade unionists and capitalists is necessary to ensure capital accumulation and investment, increased levels of employment, and citizen consumption.
The theory further champion for state intervention provided the interventions fall within the principles of capitalist. This theory further asserts that the state should play a vital role in leading the major institutions in the economy, while the business sector plays a reciprocal role.
The main aim of this category of theories is to ensure equitable redistribution of resources, lower the unemployment levels, as well as inflation and extend citizenship rights (Williamson, 1989, p. 89).
Rationale for different theories of the state
Research points out the variation in ideologies as the main source of different theories of the state. Scholars come up with their theories based on observations and purpose, and as such, the findings of their observation may vary, though, they are eligible for generalization (Kelsen, 2007, p. 62).
For instance, a state is made up of sub-systems such as society, institutions and the people/groups. The relationship between these three sub-systems may vary and be insufficient, and as such scholars seeks to increase the body of knowledge through developing new theories and upgrading the existing theories (Avineri, 2004, p. 88).
The other reason why there is growth in the number of theories of the state is the conception that an analysis that focuses mainly on a certain state is insufficient. Ideally, the states are different, distinct entities; hence, there is no similar relation between different states. As such, most theories discuss other aspect such as obligation, authority and rights, but there is no exclusive analysis on the state (Williamson, 2010, p. 64).
This existing gap in studies triggers the need to analyze and develop a theory that can explain the existing relationship in the state. Other scholars opine that the power variations, theoretical frameworks as well as inter-state pressures are playing a major role in shaping states development, yet they are deficient in explaining the global and the depth dimensions of the changes that are currently taking place (Eckersley, 2004, p. 66).
The unitary aspect of the world as stipulated by the dependency theory, enumerated that significance of understanding of different actions of certain states in relation to the bipolar relationship. The existing concept of unity among states triggers the need to establish the underlying principles that leads to the presence of such relations.
This pattern of relationship among states necessitates the development of a theory which explains in depth and expound in details of such relationship. This can only be possible through a theory.
The need of a theory is to act as a guideline during state development agenda such as reforms which can only be understood in relation to the constraints that arise out of the centre-periphery relationship. The dependency theory plays a vital role in guiding state action.
Moreover, the social relation nature of the state is another aspect that explains the different theories of the state. The social phenomenon that is present in a state cannot be separated; hence, they form a social relation.
As such, social relations, that is, relations between people are characterized as unstable, fluid, often passionate, and unpredictable. However, they rigidify to forms that appear to get hold of their own dynamic, and their own autonomy, forms, which are vital for societal stability, especially the capitalist society.
As such, it is difficult to scientifically think about such forms, and doing so is like a criticism to the discipline. Therefore, it is vital to develop theories that explain in details such rigidity of the state. In addition, such a theory forms the basis of understanding the togetherness that prevails among states.
The nature of the states is another key factor that results in different theories of the state. The derivation of the state can be either singular or as capitalists puts it “nation-state” form, as such this concept strives to the understanding of the political or statehood. In addition, to analyze the relationship between society and the state it is necessary to assume a correlation between society, state and social class.
To alleviate the confusion that may arise between ‘the political’ and the state, a theoretical generalization is necessary. For a better conceptualization of the relationship between the globally mobile capital and the nationally fixed state, it is necessary to analyze political development in relation to the conflict that result from capital fractions and the state.
This linkage between capital and state is shown using personal connections and family links, and as such the links are theoretically explored in order to bring out clearly the capitalist nature of the economy. This is evident in theories such as classic theories of imperialism, state capitalist theory and state monopoly capitalist theory (Shaw, 2000, p. 51).
The growing competition among states, as well as the varying positions of different economies in regard to global capital cannot be sufficiently discussed in relation to competition among ‘national capitals’. This discussion can be sufficiently deliberated from the mobility of capital perspective as compared to immobility of capital standpoint.
Not only does the existence of a single country depend on world capitalism reproduction, but also on capitalism reproduction within its borders. The competitive struggle that is witnessed among states is not only concerning a competition between national capitals, however it is a struggle between states to retain and attract a share of the global capital (Holloway, 1995, p. 61).
This can only be achieved through ensuring favorable conditions such as maintenance of law and order, building of infrastructure, provision of education, as well as labor power regulation within a national state borders.
As such, states depicts an antagonism, which expresses not an exploitation of the periphery states by the developed states, but rather expose the unequal struggle between states in relation to global capital attraction (Beer, 1974, p. 77).
According to the dependency theory, states can only be understood in relation to their presence in the bipolar world whose main characterization is exploitation. However, exploitation is not poor countries exploiting rich countries, but an exploitation of global labor by world capital, and again the bipolarity is the one for class.
In this sense, it is difficult to understand the relation between states as an external one, and as such, the understanding of national development can only be theorized in order to point out a clear understanding of a national state development and limit confusion that may occasion any generalization made scientifically (Marciano, 2005, p. 78).
Corporatist theory
I prefer this theory since it create an economic system, which serves the interest of all the groups. In this case, a hybrid system will serve this purpose best, as observed in the case of United States. The components of such a system are that it provides the private sector and public (government) with the opportunity to control equally part of the natural resources.
These will ensure that the different opinions in the society receive a moderate balance. In addition, the system should be one which the government plays a pivotal role in providing the necessary solutions and strategies of solving the problems facing the society (Barzel, 2002, p. 52).
In addition, the system, as well, will ensure integration of both the private sector and government units in the production of various goods and services to solve amicably the issues prevailing in a society.
The government cannot solely provide quality and affordable goods and services that can be equitably distributed among the members of the society (Wiarda, 1981, p. 77). For instance, the government cannot provide quality health and education facilities to all members of the society; this will create conflict among the society members.
When access to resources and means of production is by both the government and the private sector, the government will have surplus resources that can be used in providing services such as health, education, infrastructure, legal, and military defense to the society (Pressman, 2006, p. 31).
The system should also have components such as, the government ability to take precedence in any decisions that move around quantity of goods to be produced. The government is responsible in making final decisions whenever there is an issue that brings contention, and the two parties cannot square out a balance.
The private sector contribution to the economy should be geared towards the achievement of objectives that add to equitable and fair distribution of available resources. The resources should be utilized in a manner that will consider those of future generation. The utilization of resources should be socially oriented.
The overall pattern of the economic system has changed due to a change in some trends, in the economy. Some of these trends include; democratization, significant shift to market economies as well as the revival of cultural and ethnic politics (Dunleavy, 1994, p. 48).
Democracy is taking the center stage in the political arena of many countries, with economies engaging in free, regular and fair elections.
Democracy has nurtured civil liberties like freedom of speech, assembly and belief, neutrality in legal aspects, civilian control of the military, presence of civil societies that provide individuals with opportunities to own and operate their property as well as a rule of law that ensure equal opportunities for all the citizens in an economy. This is in relation to the key features that corporatism nurtures and strengthens (Centeno, 2001, p. 54).
The resulting competition, which arise when an economy facilitates the engagement of both the private and public sectors of the economy has influenced the shift by most of the economies to a market system.
Economies are moving to systems that foster success and recently a term known as marketization whose adoption by a good number of economies is on the rise.
Marketization describes a re-creation in the economy where labor, goods, services and property are all allowed to function in a market, that is, a competitive environment to determine their price. The move has seen privatization of state owned property, where the government decides to sell some property they own to private individuals (Wagner, 2007, p. 86).
Fragmentations that exist among the members of the society play a pivotal role in determining and shaping politics in the world. Nationalism is on its diving mode due to the increasing globalization. The revival of cultural and ethical conflicts can hamper the system prevailing in an economy.
This is because nations that have varying ideologies and socioeconomic differences may lead to a shift in the economic system from realism to a pluralism economy. In this sense, it is necessary to have government interventions so as o mitigate the consequences that could result from conflicting ideologies among society members (Hestad, 2009, p. 34).
When an economy embraces corporatism, there is some degree of success. The measurement of success of an economy is through the economic progress indicators. The main indicators of economic progress include; equal distribution of resources, low levels of poverty, low levels of illiteracy, life expectancy rate improvement, improved agriculture, as well as equitable access of opportunities (Dunleavy & O’Leary, 2000, p. 61).
For, the system to accurately function a central planning authority should be the place with a mandate of ensuring that there is an achievement of proper planning and allocation of resources.
The planning authority is in a central place where all the different aspects of economic resources are channel to, and their function is to draw up a plan of ensuring that all societies benefit from their efforts and resources, for example, the one that is in place in United States (Pressman, 2006, p. 72).
In addition, corporatism asserts that the ownership of a number of resources is by individuals and some by the Government. The decisions regarding the production of goods are partly by individuals and partly by the government.
For example, land, factories and other properties can be under the ownership of individuals and departments like railways, sea and airports are under the control of the Government. The opinions of individuals and government are deposit into consideration when making a decision (Morrow, 1995, p. 56).
Based on these documented studies and literature, a state has complex relations that can only be explained by the help of a theory. Each theory has its main tenets that underlie its development, and these points at the key features that are common among states.
With such deliberation between the reasons for a considerable number of theories of the state, this essay maintains that an economy such as United States and any other similar state can utilize corporatism theory to attain its microeconomic objectives of fair distribution of resources, price stability, as well as economic growth (Cole, 1994, p. 42).
References
Avineri , S., 2004, Hegel’s theory of the modern state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barzel, Y., 2002, A theory of the state: economic rights, legal rights, and the scope of the State Political economy of institutions and decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barzel, Y., 2005, A theory of the state: economic rights, legal rights, and the scope of the state. New York: Sage.
Beer, S., 1974, Designing Freedom, Chichester. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Centeno, M. A., 2001, The other mirror: grand theory through the lens of Latin America. New York: Princeton University Press.
Cole, G. H., 1994, The pluralist theory of the state. New York: Routledge.
Dubbink, W., 2003, ‘State, Market and Civil Society in a New Configuration’, In Wim Dubbink, Assisting the Invisible Hand: Contested Relations Between Market, State and Civil Society. Dordecht: Kluwer Publishing.
Duncan, G. C., 2009, Democracy and the capitalist state, London: CUP Archive.
Dunleavy, P., & O’Leary, B., 2000, Theories of the state: the politics of liberal democracy. New York: New Amsterdam.
Dunleavy, P., 1994, Theories of the state: the politics of liberal democracy. New York: Education.
Eckersley, R., 2004, The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty, New York: MIT Press.
Hay, C., Marsh, D., & Liste, M., 2007, The State- Theories and Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hestad, L., 2009, Theories of the state. Dakota: University of South Dakota.
Holloway, J., 1995, Global Capital and the National State. Basingtoke: MacMillan.
Kelsen, H., 2007, General Theory of Law And State, New York: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
Marciano, A. J., 2005, Law and the state: a political economy approach. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Morrow, R., 1995, Social theory and education: a critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. London: SUNY Press.
Pressman, S., 2006, Alternative theories of the state. London: Palgrave MacMillan
Pressman, S., 2010, Alternative theories of the state. London: Sage.
Shaw, M., 2000, Theory of the global state: globality as unfinished revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, G. H., 1995, The theory of the state. New York: Princeton University.
Wagner , R. H., 2007, War and the state: the theory of international politics. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Wiarda, H. J., 1981, Corporatism and national development in Latin America. New York: Westview Press.
Williamson, P. J., 2010, Varieties of Corporatism: A Conceptual Discussion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, P. J., 1989, Corporatism in perspective: an introductory guide to corporatist theory, New York: Sage.