Content deleted Content added
rm original research |
Adam Faanes (talk | contribs) Wording |
||
Line 66:
===The state and supranationalism===
[[International relations]] theorists have traditionally posited the existence of an international system, where states
In the late 20th century, gloabalization generated a debate as to whether the state can retain any of the freedom of action formerly associated with sovereignty. These constraints on the state's freedom of action are accompanied in some areas, notably Western Europe, with projects for interstate integration such as the [[European Union]].
Line 84:
For Marxist theorists, the role of modern states is determined or related to their position in capitalist societies. Many contemporary Marxists offer a liberal interpretation of Marx's comment in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' that the state is but the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. [[Ralph Miliband]] argued that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument to dominate society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between state officials and economic elites. For Miliband, the state is dominated by an elite that comes from the same background as the capitalist class. State officials therefore share the same interests as owners of capital and are linked to them through a wide array of interpersonal and political ties.
By contrast, other Marxist theorists argue that the question of who controls the state is irrelevant. Heavily influenced by Gramsci, [[Nicos Poulantzas]], a Greek [[neo-Marxism|neo-Marxist]] theorist argued that capitalist states do not always act on behalf of the ruling class, and when they do, it is not necessarily the case because state officials consciously strive to do so, but because the '[[structuralism|structural]]' position of the state
===Pluralism===
Line 95:
In particular, the "[[new institutionalism]]," an approach to politics that holds that behavior is fundamentally molded by the institutions in which it is embedded, asserts that the state is not an 'instrument' or an 'arena' and does not 'function' in the interests of a single class. Scholars working within this approach stress the importance of interposing civil society between the economy and the state to explain variation in state forms.
"New institutionalist" writings on the state, such as the works of [[Theda Skocpol]], suggest that state actors are to an important degree autonomous. In other words, state personnel have interests of their own, which
'New institutionalist' writers, claiming allegiance to Weber, often utilize the distinction between 'strong states' and 'weak states,' claiming that the degree of 'relative autonomy' of the state from pressures in society determines the power of the state—a position that has found favor in the field of [[international political economy]].
| |||