Theories Of The State Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Theories of the state have focused primarily on the determinants of the formation of state policy secondarily on the consequences of policies and have barely addressed the issue of the implementation of state policy. Although particular theoretical arguments about the state are numerous, most can be grouped into five general schools of thought or traditions: pluralism, elite theory, Marxism, state-centered theory, and public choice theory. This entry defines these theories of the state and discusses their arguments about the causes and consequences of state policies.

Pluralism And Elite Theory

Pluralist theory argues that power is widely diffused in democratic states, and, as a result of that, state policies reflect the interests of the majority of the population. In its most simple form, the main actors competing to shape state policies are interest groups attempting to influence politicians. These interest groups, formed to aggregate and give voice to the interests of various subgroups of the population on particular issues, all have different amounts and types of power. The state is viewed not as an actor in its own right but simply as a neutral “referee” in the contest between competing interest groups, so policy outcomes are a function of which interest group or coalition of interest groups has the most power. The power of interest groups is mainly a function of the extent to which the public supports them, leading pluralists to the sanguine conclusion that democratic systems usually produce policies that reflect the interests of the majority of the population. Neopluralist arguments expand the theory by looking at the importance of institutional structures, class power, and the independent interests of state actors.

Power elite theory argues that the pluralist view ignores the main underlying determinants of state policy by focusing only on competing interest groups. A great deal of power is exercised prior to interest group competition, by the structure of institutions and by the formation of preferences. Elite theory suggests that institutional structure prevents some interest groups from forming and limits the power of others. For example, things like poll taxes, literacy tests, and all-white democratic primaries in the South limited the political power and organizational capacity of poor and minority groups in the United States. Furthermore, elites control important media outlets that limit the information and distort the values of groups with interests opposed by the elite. As a result of their ability to construct institutions and shape preferences in ways that favor them, a unified power elite composed of top officials in economic, political, and military organizations is able to limit the extent of explicit conflict and shape state policy in their interests.

Marxism

Marxist theory argues that class power and the structure of modes of production determine the nature of state policy. The instrumentalist variant claims that dominant classes directly control the state by monopolizing the most important positions within the state apparatus. Democratic states are thus not the neutral referees of pluralist theory, but the state is an instrument in the hands of capitalist classes. Structural Marxists argue that such direct control and agency is not necessary to ensure that democratic states act in the interests of capitalist classes—the functional requisites of capitalist modes of production compel policies in the interests of capitalists regardless of the class origins or preferences of state officials. For example, the tax base of the state depends on the private investment decisions of capitalists, so if one state pursues ant capitalist policies, capitalists will move to another state.

State-Centered Theory

State-centered theories do not see state actors either as neutral referees or as completely controlled by elites or dominant classes, but as potentially autonomous actors with their own interests and often with the power to act on those interests. State policies therefore often reflect the institutional structure of the state and the interests of actors running the state. As a result, one of the main consequences of state policies when the state has high autonomy is to increase the size, power, and independence of the state itself. One of their most important contributions has been in explaining the origins of revolutions. In contrast to earlier accounts that looked for causal factors outside the state, such as changes in class power or in ideologies, state-centered theorists argue that the most important cause was the weakening of the state itself, usually a result of military defeats.

Public Choice Theory

Public choice theory applies economic models to democratic politics. Its main contribution is optimal location theory. Beginning with the assumption that politicians choose their policy platforms to maximize the probability of winning elections, Anthony Downs (1957) developed elegant models predicting the optimal location of political parties (the policy platform that maximizes votes) in issue spaces (continua of voters’ opinions on an issue). For presidential, winner-take all systems like the United States, it yields several interesting predictions: (1) there will be only two viable political parties, and third-party bids generally will fail; (2) both parties will locate as close as possible to the middle of the ideological spectrum, trying to attract the “median voter,” so the differences between them will be minimal; and (3) redistributive government policies will be especially influenced by and relatively beneficial for the median voter—in economic policies, the voter with roughly the median income. Political systems based on proportional representation will have the opposite characteristics: They produce multiple political parties spanning the ideological spectrum, increasing the choices available to voters but decreasing the stability of system (the latter is due to both the shorter tenure of governing coalitions and the wider swings in state policies when the ruling coalition changes).

Theories of the state are not static, but are constantly evolving in response to new data and changing intellectual trends. The main current trend is toward increasing complexity. Contemporary theories of the state are developing much more nuanced and synthetic models of the formation and consequences of state policy. Whether these more complicated theories will gain more in terms of explanatory power than they lose in precision and parsimony remains to be seen.

Bibliography:

Dahl, Robert. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982.
Who Governs? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.
Evans, Peter, Deitrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books, 1969.
Mills, C.Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Polsby, Nelson. “How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative.” Journal of Politics 22 (1960): 474–484.
Poulantzas, Nicos. Political Power and Social Classes. London: New Left Books, 1973.
Skocpol,Theda. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

This example Theories Of The State Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.