Editing State (polity)

{{Short description|Type of political organization}}
{{Redirect|The State||State (disambiguation){{!}}State}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2020}}
{{politics}}
A '''state''' is a [[politics|political]] entity that regulates [[society]] and the [[population]] within a definite [[territory]].<ref>Definition 7 (noun): "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."; Definition 10 (noun): "the [[body politic]] as organized for [[Civil authority|civil rule and government]] (distinguished from ''[[Christian Church|church]]'')."; Definition 16 (noun): "of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.". -Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Random House/Barnes and Noble, ISBN 9780760702888, pp. 1860-1861.</ref> [[Government]] is considered to form the fundamental apparatus of contemporary states.<ref>''Black's Law Dictionary'', 4th ed. (1968). West Publishing Co.</ref><ref>''Uricich v. Kolesar'', 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413.</ref>

A [[country]] often has a single state, with various [[administrative division]]s. A state may be a [[unitary state]] or some type of [[federation|federal union]]; in the latter type, the term "state" is sometimes used to refer to the [[federated state|federated polities]] that make up the [[federation]], and they may have some of the attributes of a [[sovereign state]], except being under their federation and without the same capacity to act internationally. (Other terms that are used in such federal systems may include "[[province]]", "[[Region#Administrative regions|region]]" or other terms.)

For most of [[prehistory]], people lived in [[stateless societies]]. The earliest forms of states arose about 5,500 years ago.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sandeford |first1=David S. |title=Organizational complexity and demographic scale in primary states |journal=Royal Society Open Science |date=May 2018 |volume=5 |issue=5 |pages=171137 |doi=10.1098/rsos.171137 |pmid=29892345 |pmc=5990841 |bibcode=2018RSOS....571137S }}</ref> Over time societies became more [[Social stratification|stratified]] and developed [[institution]]s leading to [[Centralisation|centralised]] governments. These gained [[state capacity]] in conjunction with the [[Urbanization#History|growth of cities]], which was often dependent on climate and [[Economic history of the world|economic development]], with centralisation often spurred on by insecurity and territorial competition.

Over time, varied forms of states developed, that used many different justifications for their existence (such as [[divine right of kings|divine right]], the theory of the [[social contract]], etc.). Today, the modern [[nation state]] is the predominant form of state to which people are subject.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wimmer |first1=Andreas |last2=Feinstein |first2=Yuval |title=The Rise of the Nation-State across the World, 1816 to 2001 |journal=American Sociological Review |date=October 2010 |volume=75 |issue=5 |pages=764–790 |doi=10.1177/0003122410382639 |s2cid=10075481 |quote=This global outcome—the almost universal adoption of the nation-state form }}</ref> [[Sovereign state]]s have [[sovereignty]]; any [[in-group and out-group|ingroup]]'s claim to have a state faces some practical limits via [[list of states with limited recognition|the degree to which]] other states [[diplomatic recognition|recognize]] them as such. [[Satellite state]]s are states that have ''[[de facto]]'' sovereignty but are often indirectly controlled by another state.

Definitions of a state are disputed.<ref name="Cudworth-2007" /><ref name="Barrow-1993" /> According to sociologist [[Max Weber]], a "state" is a [[polity]] that maintains a [[Monopoly on violence|monopoly on the legitimate use of violence]], although other definitions are common.<ref name="cudworth-2007">Cudworth et al., 2007: p. 95</ref><ref name="salmon-2008">Salmon, 2008: [https://books.google.com/books?id=ayz0kWKhKacC&pg=PA54 p. 54] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160515192733/https://books.google.com/books?id=ayz0kWKhKacC&pg=PA54|date=15 May 2016}}</ref> Absence of a state does not preclude the existence of a [[society]], such as stateless societies like the [[Haudenosaunee|Haudenosaunee Confederacy]] that "do not have either purely or even primarily political institutions or roles".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stateless Society &#124; Encyclopedia.com |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/stateless |website=www.encyclopedia.com}}</ref>  The degree and extent of governance of a state is used to determine whether it has [[failed state|failed]].<ref name="stewart">{{cite journal |last1=Patrick |first1=Stewart |date=10 December 2007 |title='Failed' States and Global Security: Empirical Questions and Policy Dilemmas |journal=International Studies Review |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=644–662 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00728.x}}</ref>

==Etymology==
The word ''state'' and its cognates in some other [[Languages of Europe|European languages]] (''stato'' in Italian, ''estado'' in Spanish and Portuguese, ''état'' in French, ''Staat'' in German and Dutch) ultimately derive from the Latin word ''status'', meaning "condition, circumstances". Latin ''status'' derives from ''stare'', "to stand", or remain or be permanent, thus providing the sacred or magical connotation of the political entity.

The English noun ''state'' in the generic sense "condition, circumstances" predates the political sense. It was introduced to [[Middle English]] {{circa|1200}} both from [[Old French]] and directly from Latin.

With the revival of the [[Roman law]] in 14th-century Europe, the term came to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various "[[estates of the realm]]" – noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The highest estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The word also had associations with Roman ideas (dating back to [[Cicero]]) about the "''status [[res publica|rei publicae]]''", the "condition of public matters". In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and became associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.<ref>Skinner, 1989: [https://books.google.com/books?id=1QrSKH_Q5M8C&pg=PA134 p.134]</ref>

The early 16th-century works of [[Machiavelli]] (especially ''[[The Prince]]'') played a central role in popularizing the use of the word "state" in something similar to its modern sense.<ref>Bobbio, 1989: [https://archive.org/details/democracydictato00bobb/page/57 pp.57–58] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430221141/https://books.google.com/books?id=4AE8ur83g8AC&pg=PA57 |date=30 April 2016 }}</ref> The contrasting of [[church and state]] still dates to the 16th century. The [[Thirteen Colonies|North American colonies]] were called "states" as early as the 1630s.{{Citation needed|date=October 2021}} The expression {{lang|fr|"L'État, c'est moi"}} ("[[I am the State]]") attributed to [[Louis XIV]], although probably apocryphal, is recorded in the late 18th century.<ref>C. D. Erhard, ''Betrachtungen über Leopolds des Weisen Gesetzgebung in Toscana'', Richter, 1791, [https://books.google.com/books?id=q5hDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA30 p. 30] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180119120324/https://books.google.ch/books?id=q5hDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA30 |date=19 January 2018 }}.
Recognized as apocryphal in the early 19th century. Jean Etienne François Marignié, ''The king can do no wrong: Le roi ne peut jamais avoit tort, le roi ne peut mal faire'', Le Normant, 1818 [https://books.google.com/books?id=P6gnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12 p. 12] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180119120711/https://books.google.ch/books?id=P6gnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12 |date=19 January 2018 }}.</ref>

==Definition==
There is no [[academic consensus]] on the definition of the state.<ref name="Cudworth-2007">Cudworth et al., 2007: p. 1</ref> The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political [[phenomena]].<ref name="Barrow-1993">Barrow, 1993: pp. 9–10</ref> According to Walter Scheidel, mainstream definitions of the state have the following in common: "centralized institutions that impose rules, and back them up by force, over a territorially circumscribed population; a distinction between the rulers and the ruled; and an element of autonomy, stability, and differentiation. These distinguish the state from less stable forms of organization, such as the exercise of chiefly power."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Scheidel|first=Walter|url=http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188318.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188318-e-2|title=The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|chapter=Studying the State|pages=5–58 |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188318.013.0002|isbn=978-0195188318 }}</ref>

The most commonly used definition is by [[Max Weber]]<ref>{{cite book|author=Dubreuil, Benoít|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qBXvK0EkTcwC&pg=PA189|title=Human Evolution and the Origins of Hierarchies: The State of Nature|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0-521-76948-8|page=189|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504025631/https://books.google.com/books?id=qBXvK0EkTcwC&pg=PA189|archive-date=4 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Gordon, Scott|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5OTyH71czwsC&pg=PA4|title=Controlling the State: Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to Today|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-674-00977-6|page=4|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503110808/https://books.google.com/books?id=5OTyH71czwsC&pg=PA4|archive-date=3 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="IPE">{{cite book|last=Hay|first=Colin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469|title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy|publisher=Routledge|year=2001|isbn=0-415-14532-5|location=New York|pages=1469–1474|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503043603/https://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469|archive-date=3 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Donovan, John C.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxnWSrZJWsC&pg=PA20|title=People, power, and politics: an introduction to political science|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=1993|isbn=978-0-8226-3025-8|page=20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160508231143/https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxnWSrZJWsC&pg=PA20|archive-date=8 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Shaw, Martin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nwcSTPnTbOYC&pg=PA59|title=War and genocide: organized killing in modern society|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2003|isbn=978-0-7456-1907-1|page=59|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603203544/https://books.google.com/books?id=nwcSTPnTbOYC&pg=PA59|archive-date=3 June 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> who describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a [[centralized]] government that maintains a [[monopoly of the legitimate use of force]] within a certain territory.<ref name="cudworth-2007" /><ref name="salmon-2008" /> Weber writes that the state "is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Weber|first=Max|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_pqZS5q72UC&dq=%22is+a+human+community+that+%28successfully%29+claims+the+monopoly+of+the+legitimate+use+of+physical+force+within+a+given+territory.%22&pg=PA78|title=From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology|date=1991|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-415-06056-1|pages=78|language=en}}</ref>

While defining a state, it is important not to confuse it with a nation; an error that occurs frequently in common discussion. A state refers to a political unit with sovereignty over a given territory.<ref name=Samuels2013>{{cite book |last1=Samuels |first1=David |title=Comparative Politics |date=2013 |publisher=Pearson Education |isbn=978-0-321-44974-0 |oclc=800588734 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> While a state is more of a "political-legal abstraction," the definition of a nation is more concerned with political identity and cultural or historical factors.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Importantly, nations do not possess the organizational characteristics like geographic boundaries or authority figures and officials that states do.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Additionally, a nation does not have a claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over their populace,<ref name=Samuels2013/> while a state does, as Weber indicated. An example of the instability that arises when a state does not have a monopoly on the use of force can be seen in African states which remain weak due to the lack of war which European states relied on.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Herbst |first1=Jeffrey |title=War and the State in Africa |journal=International Security |date=1990 |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=117–139 |doi=10.2307/2538753 |jstor=2538753 |s2cid=153804691 }}</ref> A state should not be confused with a government; a government is an organization that has been granted the authority to act on the behalf of a state.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Nor should a state be confused with a society; a society refers to all organized groups, movements, and individuals who are independent of the state and seek to remain out of its influence.<ref name=Samuels2013/>

Neuberger offers a slightly different definition of the state with respect to the nation: the state is "a primordial, essential, and permanent expression of the genius of a specific [nation]."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Neuberger |first1=Benyamin |title=State and Nation in African Thought |journal=Journal of African Studies |date=1977 |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=199–205 |id={{ProQuest|1303256827}} |oclc=772703025 }}</ref>

The definition of a state is also dependent on how and why they form. The contractarian view of the state suggests that states form because people can all benefit from cooperation with others<ref>[https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/arguments-for-liberty.pdf Arguments for Liberty] {{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> and that without a state there would be chaos.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm | title=The Project Gutenberg eBook of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes }}</ref> The contractarian view focuses more on the alignment and conflict of interests between individuals in a state. On the other hand, the predatory view of the state focuses on the potential mismatch between the interests of the people and the interests of the state. [[Charles Tilly]] goes so far to say that states "resemble a form of organized crime and should be viewed as extortion rackets."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Clark |first1=William Roberts |last2=Golder |first2=Matt |last3=Golder |first3=Sona Nadenichek |title=Foundations of Comparative Politics |year=2018 |publisher=CQ Press |isbn=978-1-5063-6074-4 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> He argued that the state sells protection from itself and raises the question about why people should trust a state when they cannot trust one another.<ref name=Samuels2013/>

Tilly defines states as "coercion-wielding organisations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise a clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories."<ref name="Tilly-1992">{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=1–2 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref> Tilly includes city-states, theocracies and empires in his definition along with nation-states, but excludes tribes, lineages, firms and churches.<ref name="Tilly-1992a" /> According to Tilly, states can be seen in the archaeological record as of 6000 BC; in Europe they appeared around 990, but became particularly prominent after 1490.<ref name="Tilly-1992a">{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and the European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=2, 4, 45–46 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref> Tilly defines a state's "essential minimal activities" as:

# '''War making''' – "eliminating or neutralizing their outside rivals"
# '''State making''' – "eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their own territory"
# '''Protection''' – "eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients"
# '''Extraction''' – "acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities"
# '''Adjudication''' – "authoritative settlement of disputes among members of the population"
# '''Distribution''' – "intervention in the allocation of goods among the members of the population"
# '''Production''' – "control of the creation and transformation of goods and services produced by the population"<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=96–97 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref><ref name="Tilly-1985" />

Importantly, Tilly makes the case that war is an essential part of state-making; that wars create states and vice versa.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

Modern academic definitions of the state frequently include the criterion that a state has to be recognized as such by the international community.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Strang |first1=David |title=Anomaly and commonplace in European political expansion: realist and institutional accounts |journal=International Organization |date=1991 |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=143–162 |doi=10.1017/S002081830003304X |s2cid=154734299 }}</ref>

Liberal thought provides another possible teleology of the state. According to John Locke, the goal of the state or commonwealth is "the preservation of property" (Second Treatise on Government), with 'property' in Locke's work referring not only to personal possessions but also to one's life and liberty. On this account, the state provides the basis for social cohesion and productivity, creating incentives for wealth-creation by providing guarantees of protection for one's life, liberty and personal property. Provision of [[Public good (economics)|public goods]] is considered by some such as [[Adam Smith]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=Adam|title=An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations |year=1776}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> as a central function of the state, since these goods would otherwise be underprovided. Tilly has challenged narratives of the state as being the result of a societal contract or provision of services in a free market –&nbsp;he characterizes the state more akin as a protection racket in the vein of organized crime.<ref name="Tilly-1985">{{cite book |doi=10.1017/cbo9780511628283.008 |chapter=War Making and State Making as Organized Crime |title=Bringing the State Back in |year=1985 |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |pages=169–191 |hdl=2027.42/51028 |isbn=978-0-521-30786-4 |s2cid=153680512 }}</ref>

While economic and political philosophers have contested the monopolistic tendency of states,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Holcombe |first1=Randall G. |title=Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable |journal=The Independent Review |date=2004 |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=325–342 |id={{Gale|A112449190}} |jstor=24562462 }}</ref> [[Robert Nozick]] argues that the use of force naturally tends towards monopoly.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Nozick|first=Robert|title=Anarchy, State, and Utopia|publisher=Blackwell|year=1974|isbn=063119780X|location=Oxford}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

Another commonly accepted definition of the state is the one given at the [[Montevideo Convention]] on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933. It provides that "[t]he state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."<ref>Article 1 of the [[s:Montevideo Convention|Montevideo Convention]].</ref> And that "[t]he federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."<ref>Article 2 of the [[s:Montevideo Convention|Montevideo Convention]].</ref>

Confounding the definition problem is that "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms in common conversation and even some academic discourse. According to this definition schema, the states are nonphysical persons of [[international law]], and governments are organizations of people.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Robinson |first1=Edward Heath |title=The Distinction Between State and Government: The Distinction Between State and Government |journal=Geography Compass |date=August 2013 |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=556–566 |doi=10.1111/gec3.12065 }}</ref> The relationship between a government and its state is one of representation and authorized agency.<ref>{{cite book|last=Crawford|first=James|year=2007|title=The Creation of States in International Law|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199228423|edition=2nd}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

=== 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]].

===State and government===
{{see also|Government}}

A state can be distinguished from a [[government]]. The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative [[bureaucracy]] that controls the state apparatus at a given time.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-link=Frank Bealey|editor1-last=Bealey|editor1-first= Frank |chapter=government |title=The Blackwell dictionary of political science: a user's guide to its terms |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-631-20695-8 |page=147|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6EuKLlzYoTMC&pg=PA147|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516012636/https://books.google.com/books?id=6EuKLlzYoTMC&pg=PA147 |archive-date=16 May 2016}}</ref><ref>Sartwell, 2008: [https://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C&pg=PA25 p. 25] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623220736/https://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C&pg=PA25 |date=23 June 2016 }}</ref><ref name="flint-taylor-137">Flint & Taylor, 2007: p. 137</ref> That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.<ref name="flint-taylor-137"/> States are immaterial and nonphysical social objects, whereas governments are groups of people with certain coercive powers.<ref>Robinson, E.H. 2013. [http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/State_and_Government.pdf The Distinction Between State and Government.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102130436/http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/State_and_Government.pdf |date=2 November 2013 }} The Geography Compass 7(8): pp. 556–566.</ref>

Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole.

===States and nation-states===
{{See also|Nation state}}

States can also be distinguished from the concept of a "[[nation]]", where "nation" refers to a cultural-political community of people. A [[nation-state]] refers to a situation where a single ethnicity is associated with a specific state.

===State and civil society===
In the classical thought, the state was identified with both political society and [[civil society]] as a form of political community, while the modern thought distinguished the [[nation state]] as a political society from civil society as a form of economic society.<ref name="zaleski">{{cite journal |last1=Zaleski |first1=Pawel |title=Tocqueville on Civilian Society: A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality |journal=Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |date=2008 |volume=50 |pages=260–266 |doi=10.28937/9783787336746_12 |jstor=24360940 |s2cid=261197955 }}</ref>

Thus in the modern thought the state is contrasted with civil society.<ref>{{cite book |author=Ehrenberg, John |chapter=Civil Society and the State |title=Civil society: the critical history of an idea |publisher=NYU Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8147-2207-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/civilsocietycrit0000ehre|url-access=registration |page=[https://archive.org/details/civilsocietycrit0000ehre/page/109 109]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Kaviraj, Sudipta |chapter=In search of civil society |editor=Kaviraj, Sudipta |editor2=Khilnani, Sunil |title=Civil society: history and possibilities |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-521-00290-5 |pages=291–293|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AOnRSNob2O8C&pg=PA291|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160501185609/https://books.google.com/books?id=AOnRSNob2O8C&pg=PA291 |archive-date=1 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Reeve, Andrew |chapter=Civil society |editor=Jones, R.J. Barry |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries P–Z |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-415-24352-0 |pages=158–160|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a29qBofx8Y8C&pg=PA158|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623201355/https://books.google.com/books?id=a29qBofx8Y8C&pg=PA158 |archive-date=23 June 2016}}</ref>

[[Antonio Gramsci]] believed that civil society is the primary locus of political activity because it is where all forms of "identity formation, ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the construction of [[hegemony]] take place." and that civil society was the nexus connecting the economic and political sphere. Arising out of the collective actions of civil society is what Gramsci calls "political society", which Gramsci differentiates from the notion of the state as a polity. He stated that politics was not a "one-way process of political management" but, rather, that the activities of civil organizations conditioned the activities of political parties and state institutions, and were conditioned by them in turn.<ref>{{cite book |author=Sassoon, Anne Showstack |title=Gramsci and contemporary politics: beyond pessimism of the intellect |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-415-16214-2 |page=70 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gZQJgfmplQoC&pg=PA70|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503105634/https://books.google.com/books?id=gZQJgfmplQoC&pg=PA70 |archive-date=3 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |chapter=Gramsci and international relations: a general perspective with examples from recent US policy towards the Third World |editor=Gill, Stephen |title=Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-521-43523-9 |page=129|chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Opkof1vyDAgC&pg=PA129 |author1=Augelli, Enrico |author2=Murphy, Craig N. |name-list-style=amp|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502034756/https://books.google.com/books?id=Opkof1vyDAgC&pg=PA129 |archive-date=2 May 2016}}</ref> [[Louis Althusser]] argued that civil organizations such as [[Christian church|church]], [[school]]s, and the [[family]] are part of an "[[Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses|ideological state apparatus]]" which complements the "[[Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses#Repressive state apparatuses|repressive state apparatus]]" (such as police and military) in reproducing social relations.<ref>{{cite book |author=Ferretter, Luke |title=Louis Althusser |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-32731-2 |page=85 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fn0ZLu27jVoC&pg=PA85}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Flecha, Ramon |chapter= The Educative City and Critical Education |editor=Apple, Michael W.|display-editors=etal |title=The Routledge international handbook of critical education |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2009 |page=330|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hD3qp2tvrLcC&pg=PA330 |isbn=978-0-415-95861-5}}</ref><ref>Malešević, 2002: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA16 p. 16] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160723035005/https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA16 |date=23 July 2016 }}</ref>

[[Jürgen Habermas]] spoke of a [[public sphere]] that was distinct from both the economic and political sphere.<ref>{{Cite book |author1=Morrow, Raymond Allen |author2=Torres, Carlos Alberto |name-list-style=amp |title=Reading Freire and Habermas: critical pedagogy and transformative social change |publisher=Teacher's College Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8077-4202-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/readingfreirehab0000morr/page/77 77] |url=https://archive.org/details/readingfreirehab0000morr|url-access=registration}}</ref>

Given the role that many social groups have in the development of public policy and the extensive connections between state bureaucracies and other institutions, it has become increasingly difficult to identify the boundaries of the state. [[Privatization]], [[nationalization]], and the creation of new [[regulation|regulatory]] bodies also change the boundaries of the state in relation to society. Often the nature of quasi-autonomous organizations is unclear, generating debate among political scientists on whether they are part of the state or civil society. Some political scientists thus prefer to speak of policy networks and decentralized governance in modern societies rather than of state bureaucracies and direct state control over policy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Kjaer, Anne Mette |title=Governance |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7456-2979-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AY5SIsf1nI4C|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611003517/https://books.google.com/books?id=AY5SIsf1nI4C |archive-date=11 June 2016}} -- {{page needed|date=January 2011}}</ref>

=== State symbols ===
{{see also|National symbol}}
* [[national flag|flag]]
* [[Gallery of country coats of arms|coat of arms]] or [[national emblem]]
* [[seal (emblem)|seal or stamp]]
* [[national motto]]
* [[national colors]]
* [[national anthem]]

== History ==
[[File:Leviathan frontispiece cropped British Library.jpg|thumb|The frontispiece of [[Thomas Hobbes]]' ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'']]
The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and a settled population have been attributed as necessary conditions to form states.<ref name="Scott-2017">{{cite book |last1=Scott |first1=James C. |title=Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States |date=2017 |publisher=Yale University Press |doi=10.2307/j.ctv1bvnfk9 |isbn=978-0-300-18291-0 |jstor=j.ctv1bvnfk9 |s2cid=158193062 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carneiro |first1=Robert L. |title=A Theory of the Origin of the State |journal=Science |date=1970 |volume=169 |issue=3947 |pages=733–738 |doi=10.1126/science.169.3947.733 |jstor=1729765 |pmid=17820299 |bibcode=1970Sci...169..733C |s2cid=11536431 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=Robert C |title=Agriculture and the Origins of the State in Ancient Egypt |journal=Explorations in Economic History |date=April 1997 |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=135–154 |doi=10.1006/exeh.1997.0673 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Borcan |first1=Oana |last2=Olsson |first2=Ola |last3=Putterman |first3=Louis |title=Transition to agriculture and first state presence: A global analysis |journal=Explorations in Economic History |date=October 2021 |volume=82 |pages=101404 |doi=10.1016/j.eeh.2021.101404 |hdl=2077/57593 |url=https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/80065/1/Accepted_Manuscript.pdf }}</ref> Certain types of agriculture are more conducive to state formation, such as grain (wheat, barley, millet), because they are suited to concentrated production, taxation, and storage.<ref name="Scott-2017" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ahmed |first1=Ali T. |last2=Stasavage |first2=David |title=Origins of Early Democracy |journal=American Political Science Review |date=May 2020 |volume=114 |issue=2 |pages=502–518 |doi=10.1017/S0003055419000741 |s2cid=29671869 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mayshar |first1=Joram |last2=Moav |first2=Omer |last3=Neeman |first3=Zvika |title=Geography, Transparency, and Institutions |journal=American Political Science Review |date=August 2017 |volume=111 |issue=3 |pages=622–636 |doi=10.1017/S0003055417000132 |s2cid=134526725 |url=https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/269317/files/twerp_1129_moav.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Boix |first1=Carles |title=Political Order and Inequality |date=2015 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-08943-3 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> [[Agriculture]] and [[writing]] are almost everywhere associated with this process: agriculture because it allowed for the emergence of a [[social class]] of people who did not have to spend most of their time providing for their own subsistence, and writing (or an equivalent of writing, like [[Inca]] [[quipu]]s) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.<ref name="Giddens" /> Bureaucratization made expansion over large territories possible.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Spencer |first1=Charles S. |title=Territorial expansion and primary state formation |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=20 April 2010 |volume=107 |issue=16 |pages=7119–7126 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1002470107 |pmid=20385804 |pmc=2867764 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The first known states were created in [[Egypt]], [[Mesopotamia]], [[Ancient India|India]], [[History of China#Ancient China|China]], [[Mesoamerica]], and the [[Andean civilizations|Andes]]. It is only in relatively [[Modern Era|modern times]] that states have almost completely displaced alternative "[[Stateless society|stateless]]" forms of political organization of societies all over the [[Earth|planet]]. Roving bands of [[hunter-gatherer]]s and even fairly sizable and complex [[tribal society|tribal societies]] based on [[herding]] or [[agriculture]] have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these "stateless" forms of political organization have in fact prevailed for all of the [[prehistory]] and much of [[human history]] and [[civilization]].

The primary competing organizational forms to the state were religious organizations (such as the Church), and [[City-republic|city republics]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bagge|first=Sverre|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NqqbDwAAQBAJ|title=State Formation in Europe, 843–1789: A Divided World|date=2019|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-429-58953-9|pages=139|language=en}}</ref>

Since the late 19th century, virtually the entirety of the world's inhabitable land has been parcelled up into areas with more or less definite borders claimed by various states. Earlier, quite large land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited, or inhabited by [[nomad]]ic peoples who were [[Stateless society|not organised as states]]. However, even within present-day states there are vast areas of wilderness, like the [[Amazon rainforest]], which are uninhabited or inhabited solely or mostly by [[indigenous people]] (and some of them remain [[uncontacted people|uncontacted]]). Also, there are so-called "[[failed state]]s" which do not hold de facto control over all of their claimed territory or where this control is challenged. Currently, the international community comprises around 200 [[sovereign states]], the vast majority of which are represented in the [[United Nations]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}

===Prehistoric stateless societies===
{{Main|Stateless societies}}
For most of human history, people have lived in [[stateless societies]], characterized by a lack of concentrated authority, and the absence of large [[social inequality|inequalities]] in economic and [[political power]].

The anthropologist [[Tim Ingold]] writes:

{{blockquote|It is not enough to observe, in a now rather dated anthropological idiom, that [[hunter gatherers]] live in 'stateless societies', as though their social lives were somehow lacking or unfinished, waiting to be completed by the evolutionary development of a state apparatus. Rather, the principal of their socialty, as [[Pierre Clastres]] has put it, is fundamentally ''against'' the state.<ref>{{cite book |author=Ingold, Tim |chapter=On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band |editor=Lee, Richard B. |editor2=Daly, Richard Heywood |title=The Cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-521-57109-8 |page=408|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5eEASHGLg3MC&pg=PA408|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160517144312/https://books.google.com/books?id=5eEASHGLg3MC&pg=PA408 |archive-date=17 May 2016}}</ref>}}

===Neolithic period{{anchor|Copper Age}}===
{{further|Neolithic|Copper Age state societies}}

During the [[Neolithic]] period, human societies underwent major cultural and economic changes, including the development of [[agriculture]], the formation of sedentary societies and fixed settlements, increasing population densities, and the use of pottery and more complex tools.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Shaw, Ian|title=A dictionary of archaeology|author2=Jameson, Robert|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2002|isbn=978-0-631-23583-5|edition=6th|page=423|chapter=Neolithic|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA423|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424124249/https://books.google.com/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA423|archive-date=24 April 2016|url-status=live|name-list-style=amp}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Hassan, F.A.|title=Sustainability or collapse?: an integrated history and future of people on earth|publisher=MIT Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-262-03366-4|editor=Costanza, Robert|page=186|chapter=The Lie of History: Nation-States and the Contradictions of Complex Societies|display-editors=etal|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8tMxW_7geWUC&pg=PA186|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502003901/https://books.google.com/books?id=8tMxW_7geWUC&pg=PA186|archive-date=2 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

Sedentary agriculture led to the development of [[property rights]], [[domestication]] of plants and animals, and larger family sizes. It also provided the basis for an external centralized state.<ref>Scott, 2009: [https://books.google.com/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC&pg=PT29 p. 29] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505021415/https://books.google.com/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC&pg=PT29|date=5 May 2016}}</ref> By producing a large surplus of food, more [[division of labor]] was realized, which enabled people to specialize in tasks other than food production.<ref>{{Cite book|author1=Langer, Erick D.|title=Encyclopedia of social history|author2=Stearns, Peter N.|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=1994|isbn=978-0-8153-0342-8|editor=Stearns, Peter N.|page=28|chapter=Agricultural systems|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kkIeyCEedrsC&pg=PA28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160604000323/https://books.google.com/books?id=kkIeyCEedrsC&pg=PA28|archive-date=4 June 2016|url-status=live|name-list-style=amp}}</ref> Early states were characterized by highly [[social stratification|stratified]] societies, with a privileged and wealthy ruling class that was subordinate to a [[monarch]]. The ruling classes began to differentiate themselves through forms of architecture and other cultural practices that were different from those of the subordinate laboring classes.<ref>{{cite book|author=Cohen, Ronald|title=The Early State|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|year=1978|isbn=978-90-279-7904-9|page=36|chapter=State Origins: A Reappraisal|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sMoLhNQ9KRoC&pg=PA36|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430061210/https://books.google.com/books?id=sMoLhNQ9KRoC&pg=PA36|archive-date=30 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the past, it was suggested that the centralized state was developed to administer large public works systems (such as irrigation systems) and to regulate complex economies.<ref name="Fukuyama-2012a">{{Cite book |last=Fukuyama |first=Francis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i9xRAQAAMAAJ&q=origins+of+political+order+amazon |title=The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution |date=2012-03-27 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=978-0-374-53322-9 |pages=70 |language=en}}</ref> However, modern archaeological and anthropological evidence does not support this thesis, pointing to the existence of several non-stratified and politically decentralized complex societies.<ref>{{cite book|author=Roosevelt, Anna C.|title=Cambridge history of the Native peoples of the Americas: South America, Volume 3|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0-521-63075-7|editor=Salomon, Frank|pages=266–267|chapter=The Maritime, Highland, Forest Dynamic and the Origins of Complex Culture|editor2=Schwartz, Stuart B.|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hxqgDcCrzjkC&pg=PA266|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624045250/https://books.google.com/books?id=hxqgDcCrzjkC&pg=PA266|archive-date=24 June 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Ancient Eurasia===
{{See also|Mesopotamia|Ancient Egypt|Indus Valley Civilization|Yellow River civilization}}

[[Mesopotamia]] is generally considered to be the location of the earliest [[civilization]] or [[complex society]], meaning that it contained [[cities]], full-time [[division of labor]], social concentration of wealth into [[capital (economics)|capital]], [[income inequality|unequal distribution of wealth]], ruling classes, community ties based on residency rather than [[kinship]], long distance [[trade]], [[monument]]al [[architecture]], standardized forms of [[art]] and culture, writing, and [[mathematics]] and [[science]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Mann, Michael|title=The sources of social power: A history of power from the beginning to A. D. 1760, Volume 1|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1986|isbn=978-0-521-31349-0|chapter=The emergence of stratification, states, and multi-power-actor civilization in Mesopotamia|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eA23bY_bIsoC&pg=PA73|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160425020841/https://books.google.com/books?id=eA23bY_bIsoC&pg=PA73|archive-date=25 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Wang-2021">{{Cite journal|last=Wang|first=Yuhua|date=2021|title=State-in-Society 2.0: Toward Fourth-Generation Theories of the State|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cuny/cp/pre-prints/content-jcpo_54108;jsessionid=635ms3i1ubui8.x-ic-live-01|journal=Comparative Politics|volume=54|pages=175–198|language=en|doi=10.5129/001041521x16184035797221|s2cid=235847848}}</ref> It was the world's first [[literate]] civilization, and formed the first sets of written [[laws]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Yoffee, Norman|title=State formation and political legitimacy|publisher=Transaction Publishers|year=1988|isbn=978-0-88738-161-4|editor=Cohen, Ronald|page=95|chapter=Context and Authority in Early Mesopotamian Law|editor2=Toland, Judith D.|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mgDBG5zu1xYC&pg=PA95|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160501185152/https://books.google.com/books?id=mgDBG5zu1xYC&pg=PA95|archive-date=1 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Yoffee, Norman|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=azE1vmdmZSIC&pg=PA102|title=Myths of the archaic state: evolution of the earliest cities, states and civilizations|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2005|isbn=978-0-521-81837-7|page=102|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511124320/http://books.google.com/books?id=azE1vmdmZSIC&pg=PA102|archive-date=11 May 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Bronze metallurgy spread within Afro-Eurasia from {{circa|3000 BC}}, leading to a [[Military Revolution|military revolution]] in the use of bronze weaponry, which facilitated the rise of states.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Turchin |first1=Peter |last2=Whitehouse |first2=Harvey |last3=Gavrilets |first3=Sergey |last4=Hoyer |first4=Daniel |last5=François |first5=Pieter |last6=Bennett |first6=James S. |last7=Feeney |first7=Kevin C. |last8=Peregrine |first8=Peter |last9=Feinman |first9=Gary |last10=Korotayev |first10=Andrey |last11=Kradin |first11=Nikolay |date=2022 |title=Disentangling the evolutionary drivers of social complexity: A comprehensive test of hypotheses |journal=Science Advances |volume=8 |issue=25 |pages=eabn3517 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abn3517 |pmid=35749491 |pmc=9232109 |bibcode=2022SciA....8N3517T |s2cid=250022526 }}</ref>

===Classical antiquity===
{{See also|Athenian democracy|Roman Republic}}
[[File:Karl Theodor von Piloty Murder of Caesar 1865.jpg|thumb|Painting of Roman Senators encircling [[Julius Caesar]]]]
Although state-forms existed before the rise of the Ancient Greek empire, the Greeks were the first people known to have explicitly formulated a political philosophy of the state, and to have rationally analyzed political institutions. Prior to this, states were described and justified in terms of religious myths.<ref>Nelson, 2006: [https://books.google.com/books?id=cvtYZmiOjT8C&pg=PA17 p. 17] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516091613/https://books.google.com/books?id=cvtYZmiOjT8C&pg=PA17|date=16 May 2016}}</ref>

Several important political innovations of [[classical antiquity]] came from the [[ancient Greece|Greek city-states]] and the [[Ancient Rome|Roman Republic]]. The Greek city-states before the 4th century granted [[Athenian democracy#Citizenship in Athens|citizenship]] rights to their free population, and in [[Athens]] these rights [[Athenian democracy|were combined]] with a [[direct democracy|directly democratic]] form of government that was to have a long afterlife in political thought and history.

===Feudal state===
{{See also|Feudalism|Middle Ages}}
During medieval times in Europe, the state was organized on the principle of [[feudalism]], and the relationship between [[lord]] and [[vassal]] became central to social organization. Feudalism led to the development of greater social hierarchies.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jones, Rhys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7OgODkcZgIIC&pg=PA52|title=People/states/territories: the political geographies of British state transformation|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2007|isbn=978-1-4051-4033-1|pages=52–53|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502081027/https://books.google.com/books?id=7OgODkcZgIIC&pg=PA52|archive-date=2 May 2016|url-status=live}} ... see also [https://books.google.com/books?id=7OgODkcZgIIC&pg=PA54 pp. 54-] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516192300/https://books.google.com/books?id=7OgODkcZgIIC&pg=PA54|date=16 May 2016}} where Jones discusses problems with common conceptions of feudalism.</ref>

The formalization of the struggles over taxation between the monarch and other elements of society (especially the nobility and the cities) gave rise to what is now called the [[Corporate statism|Standestaat]], or the state of Estates, characterized by parliaments in which key social groups negotiated with the king about legal and economic matters. These [[estates of the realm]] sometimes evolved in the direction of fully-fledged parliaments, but sometimes lost out in their struggles with the monarch, leading to greater centralization of lawmaking and military power in his hands. Beginning in the 15th century, this centralizing process gave rise to the [[Absolute monarchy|absolutist]] state.<ref name="Poggi" />

===Modern state===
{{See also|Bureaucracy|Constitution|Corporation|Globalization|Neoliberalism}}

Cultural and national homogenization figured prominently in the rise of the modern state system. Since the absolutist period, states have largely been organized on a [[nation]]al basis. The concept of a national state, however, is not synonymous with [[nation state]]. Even in the most [[ethnic]]ally homogeneous societies there is not always a complete correspondence between state and [[nation]], hence the active role often taken by the state to promote [[nationalism]] through an emphasis on shared symbols and national identity.<ref name="Breuilly" />

Charles Tilly argues that the number of total states in Western Europe declined rapidly from the Late Middle Ages to Early Modern Era during a process of [[state formation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |page=44 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref> Other research has disputed whether such a decline took place.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Abramson |first1=Scott F |title=The Economic Origins of the Territorial State |journal=International Organization |date=2017 |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=97–130 |doi=10.1017/S0020818316000308 |s2cid=22432480 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

For [[Edmund Burke]] (Dublin 1729 - Beaconsfield 1797), "a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" (Reflections on the Revolution in France).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/%C3%89tat/31318|title=Définitions : État - Dictionnaire de français Larousse|first=Éditions|last=Larousse|website=www.larousse.fr|accessdate=17 March 2023}}</ref>

According to [[Hendrik Spruyt]], the modern state is different from its predecessor polities in two main aspects: (1) Modern states have a greater capacity to intervene in their societies, and (2) Modern states are buttressed by the principle of international legal sovereignty and the judicial equivalence of states.<ref name="Spruyt-2002">{{cite journal |last1=Spruyt |first1=Hendrik |title=The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=June 2002 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=127–149 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.101501.145837 |s2cid=145637947 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The two features began to emerge in the Late Middle Ages but the modern state form took centuries to come firmly into fruition.<ref name="Spruyt-2002" /> Other aspects of modern states is that they tend to be organized as unified national polities, and that they have [[Rational-legal authority|rational-legal bureaucracies]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=George M. |last2=Meyer |first2=John W. |title=The Expansion of the State |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |date=August 1984 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=461–482 |doi=10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.002333 }}</ref>

Sovereign equality did not become fully global until after World War II amid decolonization.<ref name="Spruyt-2002" /> [[Adom Getachew]] writes that it was not until the 1960 [[Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples]] that the international legal context for popular sovereignty was instituted.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Getachew |first1=Adom |title=Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination |date=2019 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-17915-5 |jstor=j.ctv3znwvg |pages=73–74 |doi=10.2307/j.ctv3znwvg }}</ref> Historians [[Jane Burbank]] and [[Frederick Cooper (historian)|Frederick Cooper]] argue that "[[Westphalian sovereignty]]" – the notion that bounded, unitary states interact with equivalent states –&nbsp;"has more to do with 1948 than 1648."<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Burbank |first1=Jane |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y7B9euuLEkUC |title=Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference |last2=Cooper |first2=Frederick |date=2010 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-12708-8 |pages=182 |language=en}}</ref>

==Theories for the emergence of the state==

=== Earliest states ===
Theories for the emergence of the earliest states emphasize [[Cereal|grain agriculture]] and settled populations as necessary conditions.<ref name="Wang-2021" />

However, not all types of property are equally exposed to the risk of looting or equally subject to taxation. Goods differ in their shelf life. Certain [[Agriculture|agricultural products]], fish, and [[Dairy product|dairy]] spoil quickly and cannot be stored without [[refrigeration]] or freezing technology, which was unavailable in ancient times. As a result, such perishable goods were of little interest to either looters or the king (In ancient times, especially before the invention of money, [[tax]]ation was primarily collected from agricultural produce.) Both looters and rulers sought goods with long shelf lives, such as grains ([[wheat]], [[barley]], [[rice]], [[Maize|corn]], etc.), which, under proper storage conditions, could be preserved for extended periods. With the domestication of wheat and the establishment of agricultural communities, the need for protection from bandits arose, along with the emergence of strong governance to provide it. Mayshar et al. (2020) demonstrated that societies cultivating grains tended to develop hierarchical structures with a ruling elite that collected taxes, whereas societies that relied on root [[crop]]s (which have short shelf lives) did not develop such hierarchies. The cultivation of grains became concentrated in regions with fertile soil, where [[grain]] production was more profitable than root crops, even after accounting for taxes imposed by rulers and raids by looters.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mayshar |first=Joram |last2=Moav |first2=Omer |last3=Pascali |first3=Luigi |date=April 2022 |title=The Origin of the State: Land Productivity or Appropriability? |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/718372 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |volume=130 |issue=4 |pages=1091–1144 |doi=10.1086/718372 |issn=0022-3808|hdl=10230/57736 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

However, protection was not the only public good necessitating a centralized government. The shift to agriculture based on irrigation systems, as seen in [[ancient Egypt]], required cooperation among farmers. An individual farmer could not control the floods from the [[Nile|Nile River]] alone. Managing the vast amounts of water during the annual [[flood]]s and utilizing them efficiently allowed for a significant increase in agricultural yield, but this required an elaborate network of [[Canal|irrigation canals]] to distribute water efficiently across fields while minimizing waste.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mayshar |first=Joram |last2=Moav |first2=Omer |last3=Neeman |first3=Zvika |date=August 2017 |title=Geography, Transparency, and Institutions |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/geography-transparency-and-institutions/C80E17AD5932E319A94D28D77AA87580 |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=111 |issue=3 |pages=622–636 |doi=10.1017/S0003055417000132 |issn=0003-0554}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eyre |first=Christopher |date=1997-01-01 |title=Peasants and "Modern" Leasing Strategies in Ancient Egypt |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jesh/40/4/article-p367_3.xml |journal=Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient |language=en |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=367–390 |doi=10.1163/1568520972601503 |issn=1568-5209}}</ref>

Such a system exhibited characteristics of a [[natural monopoly]], as its construction involved substantial fixed costs, making it a lucrative asset for the ruling elite. Bentzen, Kaarsen, and Wingender (2017) showed that in pre-modern societies, regions dependent on irrigation-intensive agriculture experienced higher levels of land inequality. The concentration of land and control over water resources strengthened elite power, enabling them to resist [[democratization]] in the modern era. Even today, countries that rely on irrigated agriculture tend to be less democratic than those relying on rain-fed farming.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bentzen |first=Jeanet Sinding |last2=Kaarsen |first2=Nicolai |last3=Wingender |first3=Asger Moll |date=2017 |title=Irrigation and Autocracy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/90023410 |journal=Journal of the European Economic Association |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=1–53 |issn=1542-4766}}</ref>

Some argue that climate change led to a greater concentration of human populations around dwindling waterways.<ref name="Wang-2021" />

=== Modern state ===
Hendrik Spruyt distinguishes between three prominent categories of explanations for the emergence of the modern state as a dominant polity: (1) Security-based explanations that emphasize the role of warfare, (2) Economy-based explanations that emphasize trade, property rights and capitalism as drivers behind state formation, and (3) Institutionalist theories that sees the state as an organizational form that is better able to resolve conflict and cooperation problems than competing political organizations.<ref name="Spruyt-2002" />

According to [[Philip S. Gorski|Philip Gorski]] and Vivek Swaroop Sharma, the "neo-Darwinian" framework for the emergence of sovereign states is the dominant explanation in the scholarship.<ref name="Gorski-2017">{{cite book |doi=10.1017/9781316493694.005 |chapter=Beyond the Tilly Thesis |title=Does War Make States? |year=2017 |last1=Gorski |first1=Philip |last2=Sharma |first2=Vivek Swaroop |pages=98–124 |isbn=9781316493694 }}</ref> The neo-Darwininian framework emphasizes how the modern state emerged as the dominant organizational form through natural selection and competition.<ref name="Gorski-2017" />

==Theories of state function==
{{see also|Corporatism|Elite theory}}

Most political theories of the state can roughly be classified into two categories:

# "liberal" or "conservative" theories treat [[capitalism]] as a given, and then concentrate on the function of states in capitalist society. These theories tend to see the state as a neutral entity, separated from society and the economy.
# Marxist and anarchist theories, on the other hand, see politics as intimately tied in with economic relations, and emphasize the relation between economic power and [[political power]]. They see the state as a partisan instrument that primarily serves the interests of the upper class.<ref name="flint-taylor-137"/>

===Anarchist perspective===
{{Main|Anarchism}}
[[File:Anti-capitalism color— Restored.png|thumb|[[Industrial Workers of the World|IWW]] poster "[[Pyramid of Capitalist System]]" ({{circa|1911}}), depicting an [[Criticism of capitalism|anti-capitalist]] perspective on statist/capitalist social structures]]
[[Anarchism]] as a [[political philosophy]] regards the state and hierarchies as unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a [[stateless society]], or [[anarchy]], a self-managed, self-governed society based on voluntary, cooperative institutions.

Anarchists believe that the state is inherently an instrument of domination and repression, no matter who is in control of it. Anarchists note that the state possesses the [[monopoly on violence|monopoly on the legal use of violence]]. Unlike Marxists, anarchists believe that revolutionary seizure of state power should not be a political goal. They believe instead that the state apparatus should be completely dismantled, and an alternative set of social relations created, which are not based on state power at all.<ref>{{cite book | author=Newman, Saul | title=The Politics of Postanarchism | publisher=Edinburgh University Press | year=2010 | isbn=978-0-7486-3495-8 | page=109 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SiqBiViUsOkC&pg=PA109 |url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729012355/https://books.google.com/books?id=SiqBiViUsOkC&pg=PA109 | archive-date=29 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | author=Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. | title=The political economy of the state: Québec, Canada, U.S.A. | publisher=Black Rose Books | year=1973 | isbn=978-0-919618-01-5 | page=8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jzX7mCJLl9AC&pg=PA8| url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160513043033/https://books.google.com/books?id=jzX7mCJLl9AC&pg=PA8 |archive-date=13 May 2016}}</ref>

Various [[Christian anarchists]], such as [[Jacques Ellul]], have identified the state and [[political power]] as the [[The Beast (Revelation)|Beast]] in the Book of Revelation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel |last=Christoyannopoulos |first=Alexandre |author-link=Alexandre Christoyannopoulos |year=2010 |publisher=Imprint Academic |location=Exeter |pages=123–126 |quote=Revelation}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy and Christianity |last=Ellul |first=Jacques |author-link=Jacques Ellul |year=1988 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |location=Michigan |isbn=9780802804952 |pages=71–74 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=55_Oa12YTt0C&pg=PA72 |quote=The first beast comes up from the sea...It is given 'all authority and power over every tribe, every people, every tongue, and every nation' (13:7). All who dwell on earth worship it. Political power could hardly, I think, be more expressly described, for it is this power which has authority, which controls military force, and which compels adoration (i.e., absolute obedience). |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151102122037/https://books.google.com/books?id=55_Oa12YTt0C&pg=PA72&dq= |archive-date=2 November 2015}}</ref>

=== Anarcho-capitalist perspective ===
{{Main|Anarcho-capitalism}}
[[Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalists]] such as [[Murray Rothbard]] come to some of the same conclusions about the state apparatus as anarchists, but for different reasons.<ref name="Rothbard-1970">{{Cite book|last=Rothbard|first=Murray|title=Power and Market|publisher=Institute for Humane Studies|year=1970|isbn=1-933550-05-8}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> The two principles that anarcho-capitalists rely on most are consent and non-initiation.<ref name="Long-2013">{{cite journal |last1=Long |first1=Roderick T. |title=Reply to Stephen Cox |journal=The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |date=1 December 2013 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=210–223 |doi=10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0210 }}</ref> Consent in anarcho-capitalist theory requires that individuals explicitly assent to the jurisdiction of the State excluding [[Social contract#Tacit consent|Lockean tacit consent]]. Consent may also create a right of [[secession]] which destroys any concept of government monopoly on force.<ref name="Rothbard-1970" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Block |first1=Walter |title=Ayn Rand and Austrian Economics: Two Peas in a Pod |journal=The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |date=2005 |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=259–269 |jstor=41560283 }}</ref> Coercive monopolies are excluded by the non-initiation of force principle because they must use force in order to prevent others from offering the same service that they do. Anarcho-capitalists start from the belief that replacing monopolistic states with competitive providers is necessary from a normative, justice-based scenario.<ref name="Long-2013" />

Anarcho-capitalists believe that the market values of [[Competition (economics)|competition]] and [[privatization]] can better provide the services provided by the state. Murray Rothbard argues in ''[[Power and Market]]'' that any and all government functions could better be fulfilled by private actors including: defense, infrastructure, and legal adjudication.<ref name="Rothbard-1970" />

===Marxist perspective===
{{Main|Marx's theory of the state}}
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Frederick Engels|Engels]] were clear in that the goal of communism was a [[classless society]] in which the state would have [[Withering away of the state|"withered away"]], replaced only by "administration of things".<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm ''Frederick Engels'' – Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. 1880] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206061617/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm |date=6 February 2007 }} Full Text. From ''[[Historical Materialism]]'': "State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master&nbsp;– free."</ref> Their views are found throughout their [[Marx/Engels Collected Works|Collected Works]], and address past or then-extant state forms from an analytical and tactical viewpoint, but not future social forms, speculation [[utopian socialism|about which]] is generally antithetical<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Paden |first=Roger |date=2002 |title=Marx’s Critique of the Utopian Socialists |url=https://files.libcom.org/files/marxs-critique-of-the-utopian-socialists-2002-paden.pdf |journal=Utopian Studies |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=67–91 |via=libcom.org}}</ref> to groups considering themselves Marxist but who – not having conquered the existing state power(s) – are not in the situation of supplying the institutional form of an actual society. To the [[Marxism#Dispute that the Soviet Union was Marxist|extent that it makes sense]], there is no single "Marxist theory of state", but rather several different purportedly "Marxist" theories have been developed by adherents of Marxism.<ref name="flint-taylor-139">Flint & Taylor, 2007: p. 139</ref><ref>Joseph, 2004: [https://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC&pg=PA15 p. 15] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160506134017/https://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC&pg=PA15 |date=6 May 2016 }}</ref><ref>Barrow, 1993: p. 4</ref>

Marx's early writings portrayed the bourgeois state as parasitic, [[base and superstructure|built upon the superstructure]] of the [[economy]], and working against the public interest. He also wrote that the state mirrors [[social class|class]] relations in society in general, acting as a regulator and repressor of class struggle, and as a tool of political power and domination for the ruling class.<ref>{{cite book |author=Smith, Mark J. |title=Rethinking state theory |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-415-20892-5 |page=176 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hFCpqJwuv1QC&pg=PA176|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503213154/https://books.google.com/books?id=hFCpqJwuv1QC&pg=PA176 |archive-date=3 May 2016}}</ref> The ''[[Communist Manifesto]]'' claims the state to be nothing more than "a committee for managing the common affairs of the ''[[bourgeoisie]]''."<ref name="flint-taylor-139" />

For Marxist theorists, the role of the modern bourgeois state is determined by its function in the global capitalist order. [[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 [[interlocking directorate|linked to them]] through a wide array of social, economic, and political ties.<ref name="AUTOREF8" />

[[Gramsci, Antonio|Gramsci's]] theories of state emphasized that the state is only one of the institutions in society that helps maintain the [[hegemony]] of the ruling class, and that state power is bolstered by the [[false consciousness|ideological domination]] of the institutions of civil society, such as churches, schools, and mass media.<ref>Joseph, 2004: [https://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC&pg=PA44: p. 44] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729054430/https://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC&pg=PA44: |date=29 July 2016 }}</ref>

===Pluralism===
{{See also|Polyarchy}}
[[Pluralism (political theory)|Pluralists]] view society as a collection of individuals and groups, who are competing for political power. They then view the state as a neutral body that simply enacts the will of whichever groups dominate the electoral process.<ref>Vincent, 1992: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA47 pp. 47–48] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430132703/https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA47 |date=30 April 2016 }}</ref> Within the pluralist tradition, [[Robert Dahl]] developed the theory of the state as a neutral arena for contending interests or its agencies as simply another set of [[interest group]]s. With power competitively arranged in society, state policy is a product of recurrent bargaining. Although pluralism recognizes the existence of inequality, it asserts that all groups have an opportunity to pressure the state. The pluralist approach suggests that the modern democratic state's actions are the result of pressures applied by a variety of organized interests. Dahl called this kind of state a [[polyarchy]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Dahl, Robert |title=Modern Political Analysis |publisher=Prentice Hall |year=1973 |isbn=0-13-596981-6 |page={{Page needed |date=January 2011}}}}</ref>

Pluralism has been challenged on the ground that it is not supported by empirical evidence. Citing surveys showing that the large majority of people in high leadership positions are members of the wealthy upper class, critics of pluralism claim that the state serves the interests of the upper class rather than equitably serving the interests of all social groups.<ref>{{cite book |author=Cunningham, Frank |title=Theories of democracy: a critical introduction |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-415-22879-4 |pages=86–87 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cOBubkTG9JMC&pg=PA86|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160512120545/https://books.google.com/books?id=cOBubkTG9JMC&pg=PA86 |archive-date=12 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Diversity in the power elite: how it happened, why it matters |edition=2nd |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7425-3699-9 |page=4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0V0gO8tArK8C&pg=PA4 |author1=Zweigenhaft, Richard L. |author2=Domhoff, G. William |name-list-style=amp|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430085807/https://books.google.com/books?id=0V0gO8tArK8C&pg=PA4 |archive-date=30 April 2016}}</ref>

===Contemporary critical perspectives===
[[Jürgen Habermas]] believed that the base-superstructure framework, used by many Marxist theorists to describe the relation between the state and the economy, was overly simplistic. He felt that the modern state plays a large role in structuring the economy, by regulating economic activity and being a large-scale economic consumer/producer, and through its redistributive [[welfare state]] activities. Because of the way these activities structure the economic framework, Habermas felt that the state cannot be looked at as passively responding to economic class interests.<ref>{{Cite book |author=Duncan, Graeme Campbell |title=Democracy and the capitalist state |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1989 |isbn=978-0-521-28062-4 |page=137 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tMk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160425091052/https://books.google.com/books?id=tMk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137 |archive-date=25 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Edgar, Andrew |title=The philosophy of Habermas |publisher=McGill-Queen's Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-7735-2783-6 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VxfeGh-RrWwC&pg=PA5 5–6]; [https://books.google.com/books?id=VxfeGh-RrWwC&pg=PA44 44]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Cook, Deborah |title=Adorno, Habermas, and the search for a rational society |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-415-33479-2 |page=20 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lmK-RGZi5McC&pg=PA20|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160425040547/https://books.google.com/books?id=lmK-RGZi5McC&pg=PA20 |archive-date=25 April 2016}}</ref>

[[Michel Foucault]] believed that modern political theory was too state-centric, saying "Maybe, after all, the state is no more than a composite reality and a mythologized abstraction, whose importance is a lot more limited than many of us think." He thought that political theory was focusing too much on abstract institutions, and not enough on the actual practices of government. In Foucault's opinion, the state had no essence. He believed that instead of trying to understand the activities of governments by analyzing the properties of the state (a reified abstraction), political theorists should be examining changes in the practice of government to understand changes in the nature of the state.<ref>{{cite book |author=Melossi, Dario |chapter=Michel Foucault and the Obsolescent State |editor=Beaulieu, Alain |editor2=Gabbard, David |title=Michel Foucault and power today: international multidisciplinary studies in the history of the present |publisher=Lexington Books |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7391-1324-0 |page=6|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nE_UBAh_cyEC&pg=PA6|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516144400/https://books.google.com/books?id=nE_UBAh_cyEC&pg=PA6 |archive-date=16 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Gordon, Colin |chapter=Government rationality: an introduction |editor=Foucault, Michel|display-editors=etal |title=The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-226-08045-1 |page=4|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TzSt_zYZfUsC&pg=PA4|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503035737/https://books.googlecom/books?id=TzSt_zYZfUsC&pg=PA4 |archive-date=3 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Mitchell, Timothy |chapter=Society, Economy, and the State Effect |editor=Sharma, Aradhana |editor2=Gupta, Akhil |title=The anthropology of the state: a reader |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-4051-1467-7 |page=179|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ImnEMK_hKCgC&pg=PA179|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160518173206/https://books.google.com/books?id=ImnEMK_hKCgC&pg=PA179 |archive-date=18 May 2016}}</ref> Foucault developed the concept of [[governmentality]] while considering the [[Genealogy (philosophy)|genealogy]] of state, and considers the way in which an individual's understanding of governance can influence the function of the state.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lemke |first1=Thomas |title=Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique |date=2011 |publisher=Paradigm Publishers |isbn=978-1-59451-637-5 |oclc=653123044 |page=15 }}</ref>

Foucault argues that it is technology that has created and made the state so elusive and successful and that instead of looking at the state as something to be toppled we should look at the state as a technological manifestation or system with many heads; Foucault argues instead of something to be overthrown as in the sense of the [[Marxist]] and [[Anarchism|anarchist]] understanding of the state. Every single scientific technological advance has come to the service of the state Foucault argues and it is with the emergence of the Mathematical sciences and essentially the formation of [[mathematical statistics]] that one gets an understanding of the complex technology of producing how the modern state was so successfully created. Foucault insists that the [[nation state]] was not a historical accident but a deliberate production in which the modern state had to now manage coincidentally with the emerging practice of the [[police]] ([[Cameral_science|cameral science]]) 'allowing' the population to now 'come in' into ''[[jus gentium]]'' and ''[[civitas]]'' ([[civil society]]) after deliberately being excluded for several millennia.<ref name="Michel-2007">{{Cite book |title=Security,Territory,Population |last=Michel |first=Foucault |year=2007 |pages=311–332}}</ref> [[Democracy]] wasn't (the newly formed voting franchise) as is always painted by both political revolutionaries and political philosophers as a cry for political freedom or wanting to be accepted by the 'ruling elite', Foucault insists, but was a part of a skilled endeavour of switching over new technology such as; [[translatio imperii]], [[plenitudo potestatis]] and ''[[extra Ecclesiam nulla salus]]'' readily available from the past medieval period, into mass persuasion for the future industrial 'political' population (deception over the population) in which the political population was now asked to insist upon itself "the president must be elected". Where these political symbol agents, represented by the pope and the president are now democratised. Foucault calls these new forms of technology [[biopower]]<ref>{{Cite book |title=Security,Territory,Population |last=Michel |first=Foucault |year=2007 |pages=1–27}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Security,Territory,Population |last=Michel |first=Foucault |year=2007 |pages=87–115 115–135}}</ref><ref name="Michel-2007" /> and form part of our political inheritance which he calls [[biopolitics]].

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 is configured in such a way to ensure that the long-term interests of capital are always dominant. Poulantzas' main contribution to the Marxist literature on the state was the concept of 'relative autonomy' of the state. While Poulantzas' work on 'state autonomy' has served to sharpen and specify a great deal of Marxist literature on the state, his own framework came under criticism for its '[[structural functionalism]]'.{{Citation needed|date=January 2011}}

===Structural universe of the state or structural reality of the state===
It can be considered as a single structural universe: the historical reality that takes shape in societies characterized by a codified or crystallized right, with a power organized hierarchically and justified by the law that gives it authority, with a well-defined social and economic stratification, with an economic and social organization that gives the society precise organic characteristics, with one (or multiple) religious organizations, in justification of the power expressed by such a society and in support of the religious beliefs of individuals and accepted by society as a whole. Such a structural universe, evolves in a cyclical manner, presenting two different historical phases (a mercantile phase, or "open society", and a feudal phase or "closed society"), with characteristics so divergent that it can qualify as two different levels of civilization which, however, are never definitive, but that alternate cyclically, being able, each of the two different levels, to be considered progressive (in a partisan way, totally independent of the real value of well-being, degrees of freedom granted, equality realized and a concrete possibility to achieve further progress of the level of civilization), even by the most cultured fractions, educated and intellectually more equipped than the various societies, of both historical phases.<ref>Giano Rocca "The Faces of Belial – The Scientific Method Applied to Human Condition – Book V" (2020) https://independent.academia.edu/GianoRocca</ref>

===State autonomy within institutionalism===
{{Main|New institutionalism}}

State autonomy theorists believe that the state is an entity that is impervious to external social and economic influence and that it has interests of its own.<ref name="sklair-2004-139-140">{{Cite book | author=Sklair, Leslie |chapter=Globalizing class theory |editor=Sinclair, Timothy |title=Global governance: critical concepts in political science |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-415-27665-8 |pages=139–140|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1xs_MGAo3zgC&pg=PA139|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160519041724/https://books.google.com/books?id=1xs_MGAo3zgC&pg=PA139 |archive-date=19 May 2016}}</ref>

"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 they can and do pursue independently of (and at times in conflict with) actors in society. Since the state controls the means of coercion, and given the dependence of many groups in civil society on the state for achieving any goals they may espouse, state personnel can to some extent impose their own preferences on civil society.<ref name="AUTOREF10" />

==Theories of state legitimacy==
{{Main|Legitimacy (political)}}States generally rely on a claim to some form of [[legitimacy (political)|political legitimacy]] in order to maintain domination over their subjects.<ref name="vincent-1992-43">Vincent, 1992: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA43 p. 43] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624102338/https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA43|date=24 June 2016}}</ref><ref>Malešević, 2002: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA85 p. 85] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160520023400/https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA85 |date=20 May 2016 }}</ref><ref>Dogan, 1992: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA119 pp. 119–120] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617061135/https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA119 |date=17 June 2016 }}</ref>

=== Social contract theory ===
{{Main|Social contract}}
Various social contract theories have been proffered to establish state legitimacy and to explain state formation. Common elements in these theories are a [[state of nature]] that incentivizes people to seek out the establishment of a state. [[Thomas Hobbes]] described the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" ([[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|''Leviathan'']], Chapters XIII–XIV).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm|access-date=2020-11-19|website=www.gutenberg.org}}</ref> Locke takes a more benign view of the state of nature and is unwilling to take as hard a stance on the degeneracy of the state of nature. He does agree that it is equally incapable of providing a high quality of life. Locke argues for inalienable human rights. One of the most significant rights for Locke was the right to property. He viewed it as a keystone right that was inadequately protected in the state of nature.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Locke|first=John|title=Second Treatise of Government|year=1690}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Rand, Paterson, and the Problem of Anarchism |journal=The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |date=2013 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=3 |doi=10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.1.0003|last1=Stephen Cox |s2cid=169439235 }}</ref> Social contract theorists frequently argue for some level of [[Natural rights and legal rights|natural rights]]. In order to protect their ability to exercise these rights, they are willing to give up some other rights to the state to allow it to establish governance.{{citation needed|date=October 2021}} Social contract theory then bases government legitimacy on the consent of the governed, but such legitimacy only extends as far as the governed have consented. This line of reasoning figures prominently in [[United States Declaration of Independence|The United States Declaration of Independence]].

===Divine right of kings===
{{Main|Divine right of kings}}

The rise of the modern-day state system was closely related to changes in political thought, especially concerning the changing understanding of legitimate state power and control. Early modern defenders of absolutism ([[Absolute monarchy]]), such as [[Thomas Hobbes]] and [[Jean Bodin]] undermined the doctrine of the [[divine right of kings]] by arguing that the power of kings should be justified by reference to the people. Hobbes in particular went further to argue that political power should be justified with reference to the individual (Hobbes wrote in the time of the [[English Civil War]]), not just to the people understood collectively. Both Hobbes and Bodin thought they were defending the power of kings, not advocating for democracy, but their arguments about the nature of sovereignty were fiercely resisted by more traditional defenders of the power of kings, such as [[Sir Robert Filmer]] in England, who thought that such defenses ultimately opened the way to more democratic claims.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

===Rational-legal authority===
{{Main|Rational-legal authority}}

Max Weber identified three main sources of political legitimacy in his works. The first, legitimacy based on traditional grounds is derived from a belief that things should be as they have been in the past, and that those who defend these traditions have a legitimate claim to power. The second, legitimacy based on charismatic leadership, is devotion to a leader or group that is viewed as exceptionally heroic or virtuous. Max Weber's concept of charisma is also explored by Fukuyama, who uses it to explain why individuals relinquish their personal freedoms and more egalitarian smaller communities in favor of larger, more authoritarian states. The Scholars goes further by saying that Charismatic leaders can leverage this mass mobilization as a military force, achieving victories and securing peace, which in turn further legitimizes their authority. Fukuyama cites the example of Muhammad, whose influence facilitated the rise of a powerful state in North Africa and the Middle East, despite limited economic foundations.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fukuyama |first1=Francis |title=The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. |date=2012 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=978-0-374-53322-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i9xRAQAAMAAJ&q=origins+of+political+order+amazon}}</ref>
The third is [[rational-legal authority]], whereby legitimacy is derived from the belief that a certain group has been placed in power in a legal manner, and that their actions are justifiable according to a specific code of written laws. Weber believed that the modern state is characterized primarily by appeals to rational-legal authority.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallerstein, Immanuel |title=The end of the world as we know it: social science for the twenty-first century |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8166-3398-2 |page=228 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PEmVAQ_HMc8C&pg=PA228|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160528230745/https://books.google.com/books?id=PEmVAQ_HMc8C&pg=PA228 |archive-date=28 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Collins, Randall |title=Weberian Sociological Theory |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-521-31426-8 |page=158 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v39x_fKR-ykC&pg=PA158|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603181228/https://books.google.com/books?id=v39x_fKR-ykC&pg=PA158 |archive-date=3 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Max Weber dictionary: key words and central concepts |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-8047-5095-0 |page=148 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_c3Mcnh8hCgC&pg=PA148 |author1=Swedberg, Richard |author2=Agevall, Ola |name-list-style=amp|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428101520/https://books.google.com/books?id=_c3Mcnh8hCgC&pg=PA148 |archive-date=28 April 2016}}</ref>

==State failure==
{{Main|Failed state}}
Some states are often labeled as "weak" or "failed". In [[David Samuels (political scientist)|David Samuels]]'s words "...a failed state occurs when sovereignty over claimed territory has collapsed or was never effectively at all".<ref>{{Cite book |title=Comparative Politics |last=Samuels |first=David |publisher=Pearson Higher Education |year=2012 |pages=29}}</ref> Authors like [[David Samuels (political scientist)|Samuels]] and [[Joel S. Migdal]] have explored the emergence of weak states, how they are different from Western "strong" states and its consequences to the economic development of developing countries.

Samuels introduces the idea of state capacity, which he uses to refer to the ability of the state to fulfill its basic functions, such as providing security, maintaining law and order, and delivering public services. When a state does not accomplish this, state failure happens (Samuels, 2012). Other authors like Jeffrey Herbst add to this idea by arguing that state failure is the result of weak or non-existent institutions, which means that there is no state legitimacy because states are not able to provide goods or services or maintain order and safety (Herbst, 1990). However, there are also ideas that challenge this notion of state failure. Stephen D. Krasner argues that state failure is not just the result of weak institutions, but rather a very complex phenomenon that varies according to context-specific circumstances, and should therefore not be analyzed through a simplistic understanding like the one normally presented (Krasner, 2004).

===The problem with state failure===

In "The Problem of Failed States", Susan Rice argues that state failure is an important threat to global stability and security, since failed states are vulnerable to terrorism and conflict (Rice, 1994).{{Full citation needed|date=March 2024}} Additionally, it is believed that state failure hinders democratic values, since these states often experience political violence, authoritarian rules, and a number of human rights abuses (Rotberg, 2004).{{Full citation needed|date=March 2024}} While there is great discussion regarding the direct effects of state failure, its indirect effects should also be highlighted: state failure could lead to refugee flows and cross-border conflicts, while also becoming safe havens for criminal or extremist groups (Corbridge, 2005).{{Full citation needed|date=March 2024}} In order to solve and prevent these issues in the future, it is necessary to focus on building strong institutions, promoting economic diversification and development, and addressing the causes of violence in each state (Mkandawire, 2001).{{Full citation needed|date=March 2024}}

===Early state formation===

To understand the formation of weak states, [[David Samuels (political scientist)|Samuels]] compares the formation of European states in the 1600s with the conditions under which more recent states were formed in the twentieth century. In this line of argument, the state allows a population to resolve a collective action problem, in which citizens recognize the authority of the state and exercise the power of coercion over them. This kind of social organization required a decline in the legitimacy of traditional forms of ruling (like religious authorities) and replaced them with an increase in the legitimacy of depersonalized rule; an increase in the central government's sovereignty; and an increase in the organizational complexity of the central government ([[bureaucracy]]).

The transition to this modern state was possible in Europe around 1600 thanks to the confluence of factors like the technological developments in warfare, which generated strong incentives to tax and consolidate central structures of governance to respond to external threats. This was complemented by the increase in the production of food (as a result of productivity improvements), which allowed to sustain a larger population and so increased the complexity and centralization of states. Finally, cultural changes challenged the authority of monarchies and paved the way for the emergence of modern states.<ref name="Samuels">{{Cite book |title=Comparative Politics |last=Samuels |first=David |publisher=Pearson Higher Education }}</ref>

===Late state formation===

The conditions that enabled the emergence of modern states in Europe were different for other [[country|countries]] that started this process later. As a result, many of these states lack effective capabilities to tax and extract revenue from their citizens, which derives in problems like corruption, tax evasion and low economic growth. Unlike the European case, late state formation occurred in a context of limited international conflict that diminished the incentives to tax and increase military spending. Also, many of these states emerged from colonization in a state of poverty and with institutions designed to extract natural resources, which have made more difficult to form states. European colonization also defined many arbitrary borders that mixed different cultural groups under the same national identities, which has made difficult to build states with legitimacy among all the population, since some states have to compete for it with other forms of political identity.<ref name="Samuels" />

As a complement to this argument, [[Joel S. Migdal|Migdal]] gives a historical account on how sudden social changes in the Third World during the [[Industrial Revolution]] contributed to the formation of weak states. The expansion of international trade that started around 1850, brought profound changes in Africa, Asia and Latin America that were introduced with the objective of assure the availability of raw materials for the European market. These changes consisted in: i) reforms to landownership laws with the objective of integrate more lands to the international economy, ii) increase in the taxation of peasants and little landowners, as well as collecting of these taxes in cash instead of in kind as was usual up to that moment and iii) the introduction of new and less costly modes of transportation, mainly railroads. As a result, the traditional forms of social control became obsolete, deteriorating the existing institutions and opening the way to the creation of new ones, that not necessarily lead these countries to build strong states.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World |last=Migdal |first=Joel |year=1988 |pages=Chapter 2}}</ref> This fragmentation of the social order induced a political logic in which these states were captured to some extent by "strongmen", who were capable to take advantage of the above-mentioned changes and that challenge the sovereignty of the state. As a result, these decentralization of social control impedes to consolidate strong states.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World |last=Migdal |first=Joel |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1988 |pages=Chapter 8}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Civil control of the military]]
* [[Civilization state]]
* [[Colony]]
* [[International relations]]
* [[List of sovereign states]]
* [[Puppet state]]
* [[Rule of law]]
* [[Statism]]
* [[Supranational union]]
* [[Warlord]]ism

==References==

===Notes===
{{Reflist|group=note}}
{{reflist|refs=

<ref name="Giddens">{{cite book|last = Giddens|first= Anthony|date = 1987|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=wJu1Z4cTdsIC&q=Giddens%20Contemporary%20Critique%20of%20Historical%20Materialism%20the%20Nation%20State%20and%20Violence&pg=PA35 |title = Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism|volume = II: The Nation-State and Violence|location= Cambridge|publisher = Polity Press|isbn = 0-520-06039-3|chapter = The Traditional State: Domination and Military Power }}</ref>

<!--<ref name="AUTOREF2">Grinin L. E. Democracy and Early State. Social Evolution & History 3(2), September 2004 (pp. 93–149)[http://old.uchitel-izd.ru/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=58 Democracy and Early State]</ref> -->

<ref name="Poggi">Poggi, G. 1978. The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.</ref>

<ref name="Breuilly">Breuilly, John. 1993. [https://books.google.com/books?id=6sEVmFtkpngC Nationalism and the State]. New York: St. Martin's Press. {{ISBN|0-7190-3800-6}}.</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF4">''The Australian National Dictionary: Fourth Edition'', p. 1395. (2004) Canberra. {{ISBN|0-19-551771-7}}.</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF8">Miliband, Ralph. 1983. Class power and state power. London: Verso.</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF10">Rueschemeyer, Skocpol, and Evans, 1985: {{page needed|date=January 2011}}</ref>
|30em}}

===Bibliography===
{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{Cite book |author=Barrow, Clyde W. |title=Critical Theories of State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist |publisher=University of Wisconsin Press |year=1993 |isbn=0-299-13714-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t3zo8mCl580C}}
* {{Cite book |author=Bobbio, Norberto |title=Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |year=1989 |isbn=0-8166-1813-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/democracydictato00bobb|url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |title=The Modern State: Theories and Ideologies |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-7486-2176-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pr8tAAAAYAAJ |author=Cudworth, Erika}}
* {{cite book |author=Dogan, Mattei |chapter=Conceptions of Legitimacy |editor=Paynter, John |display-editors=etal |title=Encyclopedia of government and politics |publisher=Psychology Press |year=1992 |isbn=978-0-415-07224-3|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA116}}
* {{cite book |title=Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-State, and Locality |edition=5th |publisher=Pearson/Prentice Hall |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-13-196012-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GXz9xHdHeZcC |author1=Flint, Colin |author2=Taylor, Peter |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{Cite book |author=Garrard, Graeme |title=The Return of the State: And Why It Is Essential For Our Health, Wealth and Happiness |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2022 |isbn=9780300256758 |url=https://yalebooks.co.uk/page/detail/the-return-of-the-state/?k=9780300256758}}
* {{cite book |author=Hay, Colin |chapter=State theory |editor=Jones, R.J. Barry |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries P-Z |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-415-24352-0 |pages=1469–1475|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469}}
* {{cite book |author=Joseph, Jonathan |title=Social theory: an introduction |publisher=NYU Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-8147-4277-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC}}
* {{cite book |author=Malešević, Siniša |title=Ideology, legitimacy and the new state: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia |publisher=Routledge |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-7146-5215-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC}}
* {{cite book |author=Nelson, Brian T. |title=The making of the modern state: a theoretical evolution |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-4039-7189-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cvtYZmiOjT8C}}
* {{Cite book |title=Bringing the State Back In |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1985 |isbn=0-521-31313-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sYgTwHQbNAAC |author1=Rueschemeyer, Dietrich |author2=Skocpol, Theda |author3=Evans, Peter B.}}
* {{Cite book |author=Salmon, Trevor C. |title=Issues in international relations |year=2008 |publisher=Taylor & Francis US |isbn=978-0-415-43126-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ayz0kWKhKacC}}
* {{cite book |author=Sartwell, Crispin |title=Against the state: an introduction to anarchist political theory |publisher=SUNY Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-7914-7447-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C}}
* {{cite book |author=Scott, James C. |title=The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-300-15228-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/artofnotbeinggov0000scot|url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |author=Skinner, Quentin |chapter=The state |editor=Ball, T |editor2=Farr, J. |editor3=Hanson, R.L. |title=Political Innovation and Conceptual Change |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1989 |isbn=0-521-35978-3 |pages=90–131|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1QrSKH_Q5M8C&pg=PA90}}
* {{cite book |author=Vincent, Andrew |chapter=Conceptions of the State |editor=Paynter, John |display-editors=etal |title=Encyclopedia of government and politics |publisher=Psychology Press |year=1992 |isbn=978-0-415-07224-3|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA48}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|30em}}
<!-- * {{cite book |title= |publisher= |isbn= |url=}} -->
* {{cite book |author=Barrow, Clyde W. |chapter=The Miliband-Poulantzas Debate: An Intellectual History |editor=Aronowitz, Stanley |editor2=Bratsis, Peter |title=Paradigm lost: state theory reconsidered |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8166-3293-0|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=occGXv3T0ycC&pg=PA3}}
* {{cite book |chapter=The State |editor=Bottomore, T.B. |title=A Dictionary of Marxist thought |edition=2nd |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-631-18082-1|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q4QwNP_K1pYC&pg=PA520}}
* {{cite book |author=Bratsis, Peter |title=Everyday Life and the State |publisher=Paradigm |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-59451-219-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mh_zAAAAMAAJ}}
* {{cite book |author=Faulks, Keith |chapter=Classical Theories of the State and Civil Society |title=Political sociology: a critical introduction |publisher=NYU Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8147-2709-6|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_fjCczhvWj0C&pg=PA32}}
* {{cite book |editor=Feldbrugge, Ferdinand J.M. |title=The law's beginning |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |year=2003 |isbn=978-90-04-13705-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DG_HMgPYMlMC}}
* {{cite book |author=Fisk, Milton |title=The state and justice: an essay in political theory |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1989 |isbn=978-0-521-38966-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UVv1oS3afmIC}}
* {{cite book |author=Friedeburg, Robert von |title=''State Forms and State Systems in Modern Europe'' |publisher=[[Institute of European History]] |year=2011 |url=http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0159-2010102576}}
* {{cite book |chapter=Violence and the State |editor=Coleman, Roy |display-editors=etal |title=State, Power, Crime |publisher=Sage |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4129-4805-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/statepo_xxx_2009_00_4224|url-access=registration |page=[https://archive.org/details/statepo_xxx_2009_00_4224/page/116 116] |author1=Green, Penny |author2=Ward, Tony |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite book |editor=Hall, John A. |title=The state: critical concepts (Vol. 1 & 2) |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-415-08683-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EFmfJlNFEKgC}}
* {{cite book |editor=Hansen, Thomas Blom |editor2=Stepputat, Finn |title=States of imagination: ethnographic explorations of the postcolonial state |publisher=Duke University Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-8223-2798-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pk9W2W6LCpIC}}
* {{cite book |author=Hoffman, John |title=Beyond the state: an introductory critique |publisher=Polity Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-7456-1181-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TG6OQgAACAAJ}}
* {{cite book |author=Hoffman, John |title=Citizenship beyond the state |publisher=Sage |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7619-4942-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nHu8uwrBO6gC}}
* {{cite book |author=Jessop, Bob |title=State theory: putting the Capitalist state in its place |publisher=Penn State Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-271-00735-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HcxBBhXjAUcC}}
* {{cite book |author=Jessop, Bob |chapter=Redesigning the State, Reorienting State Power, and Rethinking the State |editor=Leicht, Kevin T. |editor2=Jenkins, J. Craig |title=Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective |publisher=Springer |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-387-68929-6|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U5_HatyUydwC&pg=PA41}}
* {{cite book |last1=Jessop |first1=Bob |title=The State: Past, Present, Future |date=2015 |publisher=[[Polity (publisher)|Polity]] |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780745633053}}
* {{cite book |author=Lefebvre, Henri |editor=Brenner, Neil |editor2=Elden, Stuart |title=State, space, world: selected essays |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-8166-5317-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5cYnB3KsqdkC}}
* {{cite book |author1=Long, Roderick T. |author2=Machan, Tibor R. |name-list-style=amp |title=Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country? |publisher=Ashgate Publishing |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-7546-6066-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PUev30VZ04kC}}
* {{cite book |author=Mann, Michael |chapter=The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results |editor=Hall, John A. |title=The State: critical concepts, Volume 1 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-415-08680-6|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EFmfJlNFEKgC&pg=PA331}}
* {{cite book |author=Oppenheimer, Franz |title=The state |publisher=Black Rose Books |year=1975 |isbn=978-0-919618-59-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_dJXaqobz4AC}}
* {{cite book |title=State, power, socialism |publisher=Verso |year=2000 |isbn=978-1-85984-274-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ejTYwLoZtY4C |author1=Poulantzas, Nicos |author2=Camiller, Patrick |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite book |author1=Sanders, John T. |author2=Narveson, Jan |name-list-style=amp |title=For and against the state: new philosophical readings |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=1996 |isbn=978-0-8476-8165-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7k_gBlYQwOcC}}
* {{Cite book |author=Scott, James C. |title=Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed |publisher=Yale University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-300-07815-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/seeinglikestateh00scot_0|url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |author=Taylor, Michael |title=Community, anarchy, and liberty |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1982 |isbn=978-0-521-27014-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eI9xYg7CwiwC}}
* {{cite book |author=Zippelius, Reinhold |title=Allgemeine Staatslehre, Politikwissenschaft |edition=16th |year=2010 |publisher=C.H. Beck, Munich |isbn=978-3406603426}}
* {{cite encyclopedia |author=Uzgalis, William |title=John Locke |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=5 May 2007 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Wiktionary|state|estate|status}}
{{Wikiquote|State}}
* {{Cite EB1911 |wstitle=State |volume=25 |pages=799–801 |first=Thomas |last=Barclay |short=1}}

{{Types of state}}
{{Political philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Political geography]]
[[Category:Political science terminology]]
[[Category:State politics]]
[[Category:Types of administrative division]]