Editing State (polity) (section)

=== Types of states ===
Charles Tilly distinguished between empires, theocracies, city-states and nation-states.<ref name="Tilly-1992a" /> According to [[Michael Mann (sociologist)|Michael Mann]], the four persistent types of state activities are:

# Maintenance of internal order
# Military defence and aggression
# Maintenance of communications infrastructure
# Economic redistribution<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mann|first=Michael|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gkd5QgAACAAJ&q=States,+War,+and+Capitalism:+Studies+in+Political+Sociology|title=States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology|date=1992|publisher=Blackwell|isbn=978-0-631-18509-3|pages=14–15|language=en|orig-date=1988}}</ref>

[[Josep Colomer]] distinguished between empires and states in the following way:

# Empires were vastly larger than states
# Empires lacked fixed or permanent boundaries whereas a state had fixed boundaries
# Empires had a "compound of diverse groups and territorial units with asymmetric links with the center" whereas a state had "supreme authority over a territory and population"
# Empires had multi-level, overlapping jurisdictions whereas a state sought monopoly and homogenization<ref>{{Cite web|last=Colomer|first=Josep M.|date=2017|title=Empires Versus States|url=https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-608|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.608|isbn=978-0-19-022863-7}}</ref>
According to [[Michael Hechter]] and [[William I. Brustein|William Brustein]], the modern state was differentiated from "leagues of independent cities, empires, federations held together by loose central control, and theocratic federations" by four characteristics:

# The modern state sought and achieved territorial expansion and consolidation
# The modern state achieved unprecedented control over social, economic, and cultural activities within its boundaries
# The modern state established ruling institutions that were separate from other institutions
# The ruler of the modern state was far better at monopolizing the means of violence<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hechter |first1=Michael |last2=Brustein |first2=William |title=Regional Modes of Production and Patterns of State Formation in Western Europe |journal=American Journal of Sociology |date=1980 |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=1061–1094 |doi=10.1086/227125 |jstor=2778891 |s2cid=143853058 }}</ref>

States may be classified by [[Political philosophy|political philosophers]] as [[sovereign state|sovereign]] if they are not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. Other states are subject to external [[sovereignty]] or [[hegemony]] where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.<ref name="Marek">{{cite book|last=Marek|first=Krystyna|title=Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law|publisher=Library Droz|year=1954|isbn=978-2-600-04044-0|page=178|quote=It has been thought necessary to quote the Lytton Report at such length since it is probably the fullest and most exhaustive description of an allegedly independent, by 'actually' dependent, i.e. Puppet State}}</ref> Many states are [[federated state]]s which participate in a [[federal union]]. A federated state is a territorial and [[constitution]]al community forming part of a [[federation]].<ref name="AUTOREF4" /> (Compare [[Confederation|confederacies]] or confederations such as Switzerland.) Such states differ from [[sovereign state]]s in that they have transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a [[federal government]].<ref name="oxford-state">{{cite journal|year=1995|editor1-last=Thompson|editor1-first=Della|title=state|journal=Concise Oxford English Dictionary|edition=9th|publisher=Oxford University Press|quote='''3''' (also '''State''') '''a''' an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. '''b''' such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America}}</ref>

One can commonly and sometimes readily (but not necessarily usefully) classify states according to their apparent make-up or focus. The concept of the nation-state, theoretically or ideally co-terminous with a "nation", became very popular by the 20th century in Europe, but occurred rarely elsewhere or at other times. In contrast, some states have sought to make a virtue of their multi-ethnic or [[multinational state|multinational]] character ([[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] [[Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary|Austria-Hungary]], for example, or the [[Soviet Union]]), and have emphasised unifying characteristics such as [[autocracy]], [[Divine right of kings|monarchical legitimacy]], or [[ideology]]. Other states, often [[Fascism|fascist]] or [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] ones, promoted state-sanctioned notions of [[Scientific racism|racial superiority]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Longerich | first = Peter | title = Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-0-19-280436-5 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford; New York }}</ref> Other states may bring ideas of commonality and inclusiveness to the fore: note the ''[[res publica]]'' of ancient Rome and the ''[[Rzeczpospolita]]'' of [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Poland-Lithuania]] which finds echoes in the modern-day [[republic]]. The concept of temple states centred on religious shrines occurs in some discussions of the ancient world.<ref>
For example: {{cite book |last1=Pastor |first1=Jack |year=1997 |chapter=3: The Early Hellenistic Period |title=Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AGeHDna_9dwC |location=London |publisher=Routledge |publication-date = 2013 |page=32 |isbn=978-1-134-72264-8 |access-date=2017-02-14 |quote=The idea of Jerusalem as a temple state is an analogy to the temple states of Asia Minor and the Seleucid Empire, but it is an inappropriate analogy. [...] Rostovtzeff referred to Judea as a sort of temple state, notwithstanding his own definition that stipulates ownership of territory and state organization. [...] Hengel also claims that Judea was a temple state, ignoring his own evidence that the Ptolemies hardly would have tolerated such a situation. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219161745/https://books.google.com/books?id=AGeHDna_9dwC |archive-date=19 December 2016}}
</ref> Relatively small [[city-state]]s, once a relatively common and often successful form of polity,<ref>
[[Athens (city-state)|Athens]], [[Carthage]], [[Ancient Rome|Rome]], [[Novgorod Republic|Novgorod]], [[Pskov Republic|Pskov]], [[History of Hamburg|Hamburg]], [[Bremen (state)|Bremen]], [[Free City of Frankfurt|Frankfurt]], [[Free City of Lübeck|Lübeck]], [[Republic of Florence|Florence]], [[Republic of Pisa|Pisa]], [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]], [[Republic of Venice|Venice]], [[Free City of Danzig|Danzig]], [[Free State of Fiume|Fiume]], [[Republic of Ragusa|Dubrovnik]].</ref> have become rarer and comparatively less prominent in modern times. Modern-day independent city-states include [[Vatican City]], [[Monaco]], and [[Singapore]]. Other city-states survive as federated states, like the present day [[City-state#Stadtstaaten of Germany|German city-states]], or as otherwise autonomous entities with limited sovereignty, like [[Hong Kong]], [[Gibraltar]] and [[Ceuta]]. To some extent, [[urban secession]], the creation of a new city-state (sovereign or federated), continues to be discussed in the early 21st century in cities such as [[London independence|London]].