States and statehood in world politics

 They have been the fundamental building blocks of modern world politics. They are the core political- organizational units.  Nation-states; the assumption is that some sort of social and economic, grass-roots ‘nation’ had either pre-existed, or been constructed from above or below and justified through nationalism, to underpin and empower state institutions and political processes.  Statehood; fulfilling two different and sometimes conflicting functions, domestic and international, simultaneously. (‘Two-level games’)  This is the central problematique or analytical puzzle of the modern world system itself.

Some more powerful older nation-states like Britain, France, Germany and, the United States have been seen to have comparative institutional advantage in terms of embodying ‘statehood’ related with their;  Long-term historical development  Their relative wealth and power in an industrializing world  Their governments increasing bureaucratization and state intervention and regulation to promote economic growth, prosperity and welfare(Foucault has called this ‘biopolitics’)  Their inhabitants 'sense of common sociological or ideological identity or belonging, whether instilled and indoctrinated from above or spontaneously emerging from below. (Beeson and Bisley, 2013, Chp 3, p.31)

 strong centralizing institutions,  political processes,  economic development,  cultural identity. Failed or collapsed states are seen as failing to fulfil those requirements of statehood.

 G lobalization presents a challenge to this modern ‘multifunctional’ conception of the state and statehood where state itself is being stretched, relocated, broken up and put back together in new ways  integration of global markets and production chains  rapid technological innovation  the growth of multilevel governance  the convergence of economic policies around varieties of neoliberalism  the increasing influence of transnational interest groups and social movements  the emergence of a global village linking societies and identities across borders

 Globalization led to a high level of interdependence of economic, political and social processes across borders and make it more difficult to make policies in isolation.  ‘Multi-level governance’ is a new way of policy- making in a highly globalized world. (1) More formal international regimes, institutions and quasi –supranational bodies( UN, IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, EU) (2) Less formal transnational processes are also emerging( G7/8, G20)

 Uncertain and contested but would result with a more complex form of world politics that is multi-level.

 Paradoxically, the development of the modern state has historically gone hand in hand with the long-term globalization of the modern politics and the international economy  The nation-state form is linked with the concept of modernity( conceived to be ‘higher’ forms of organizational, institutional and socio- economic development in contrast to the village societies, tribal societies, city states, multilayered feudal and warlord-dominated societies, federations and confederations of various kinds, and empires)  The territorial integrity of the states and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states have become the fundamental organizing doctrine of an international system rooted in the de jure sovereignty and de facto autonomy of states  They were products of discourse, manipulation and institutionalization- the cornerstone of a wider project of political modernization.

The state is both a structured field of institutionalized power on the one hand and a structured playing field for the exercise of social and personal power on the other.

State as a structured field of institutional power  A set of generally accepted ‘rules of the game  The distribution of resources in a particular society  A dominant ideology  The capacity of the state to use force, whether ‘the monopoly of legitimate violence(Max Weber) or a range of legal, economic and social sanctions, to impose particular decisions and ways of doing things upon both individuals and society as a whole. (p.37) State as a structured playing field  The state is populated by a range of actors within and around the state apparatus.  These ‘state actors’ make decisions and attempt to impose outcomes on non-state actors.

 States are differentiated organizations, distinct from families, churches, classes, races and the like; from economic institutions like firms or markets; and from non-state political organizations such as interest and pressure groups.  States are discrete and autonomous. That means they are not subordinate to, nor incorporated within, nor morphologically determined by other organizations, institutions or structures.  The state stands on its own.  The state is also a contested concept.

 The state can be seen as contested on at least three levels. (1)State is an economically contested organization. Fairness and justice vs. material criteria and relations of profit, exchange and economic efficiency (2)State is a socially contested organization. Class, clans, ethnicity, religion, geography, gender and ideology divisions within the state (3)State is a politically contested organization Strong states at both levels in the sense that they can be rooted in widely accepted social identities and bonds with effective and efficient institutions. The opposite means they are politically contested.

Organizational issues related with how states work both internally and externally(and in between) in this more complex environment