Is  the  state  still  in  control?                

Journal  entry  01/10/2010  

Steven  Lauwers  

 

In  this  week’s  readings  and  in  the  lecture,  we  looked  at  how  the  state  changed  and  what  

implications   this   has.   We   moved   from   what   we   define   as   a   Westphalian   state   to   a  

modern   state,  but  while   there  were   clear  descriptions  about  what   the   state  needed   to  

look  like  in  the  past,  do  we  have  any  idea  what  the  state  “should”  look  like  in  the  future?    

 

To  very  briefly  summarize,  the  definition  of  a  Westphalian  state  said  that  sovereignty  of  

the  state  is  based  on  territoriality  and  the  separation  of  the  domestic  and  international  

sphere.  M.  Weber  then  later  defined  a  state  as  “a  compulsory  political  organization  with  

continuous  operations  (…)  insofar  as  its  administrative  staff  successfully  upholds  the  claim  

to   the  monopoly  of   the   legitimate  use  of  physical   force   in   the  enforcement  of   its  order”.   i  

This  would  mean  that  social  order  can  only  be  obtained  through  an  ever-­‐present  threat  

of  coerciveness.  ii  As  a  state  cannot  rely  only  on  this  ‘monopoly  of  coerciveness’,  M.  Zürn  

and   S.   Leibfried   identified   4   dimensions   a   state   has   to   be   active   in,   in   order   to   be   a  

successful  modern   state:   resource,   law,   legitimacy   and  welfare.   iii   In   the  Golden  Age   1,  

this  democratic  welfare  state  reached  its  height;  it  was  characterized  by  the  congruence  

of  social  and  political  space,  which  allowed  an  almost  paternalistic  state  control.    

 

After  the  Golden  Age,  important  shifts  took  place  in  these  different  dimensions,  causing  

the  borders  of  societal  interactions,  and  other  activities  involving  new  actors,  to  lie  well  

beyond  the  borders  of  any  nation-­‐state,  often  within  borders  of  other  nation-­‐states.   In  

these  shifts,  the  trend  of  globalization  is  perceived  as  predominant,  but  one  should  keep  

in   mind   that   society   is   moving   in   different   directions.   Professor   Dr   Jachtenfuchs  

therefore  prefered  to  refer  to  this  as  denationalization,  rather  than  only   ‘globalization’,  

which  he  sees  as  only  one  part  of  how  the  state  is  changing.  (…)    

 

Does   this  shift   in  dimensions,  and  away   from  what  we  defined  as  a  Westphalian  state,  

means  a  loss  of  control?  I  wouldn’t  say  so.    The  modern  state  needed  to  delegate  many  of  

its  activities  to  new  actors,  which  Salamon  describes  as  third  party  governanceiv,   to  be  

able   to  manage   these   shifts.   Delegating   powers   assumes   a   certain   dependence   of   the  

                                                                                                               1  The  Golden  Age  refers  to  the  most  prosperous  period  for  the  democratic  welfare-­‐state’s  between  the  1960s  and  the  1970s.  The  term  was  popularized  by  the  Eric  J.  Hobsbawm  and  Jürgen  Habermas.  

actors   and   control   of   the   principal,   the   state.   What   we   can   see   though   is   that   the  

international   community   is   exercising   increasing   control   on   the   state.   In   his   lecture,  

Professor   Dr   Jachtenfuchs   said   that   “you   are   a   state   if   the   international   community  

accepts  you  as  one.”  Where   the  modern  state  might  be  one  of   third  party  governance,  

the  state  has  increasingly  become  an  actor  itself:  of  and  in  the  international  community.  

This   implies   that   control   now   is   exercised   on   two   levels,   the   state-­‐level   and   the  

international  level.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                               i  Weber  M.  (1978  (1922)):  Economy  and  Society.  An  Outline  of  Interpretative  Sociology.  p.  54  ii  North  D.  C  et  al  (2006).  A  Conceptual  Framework  for  Interpreting  Recorded  Human  History.  p.  10  iii  Zürn,  M.,  Leibfried,  S.  (2005).  Reconfiguring  the  National  Constellation.  p.  2.  iv  Salamon,  L.  M.  (2002):  The  New  Governance  and  the  Tools  of  Public  Action:  An  Introduction,  p.  7