A Transformation of the State or Regime Change? A Few Points of Confusion in Theory and Sociology of the State
Du Gay, Paul
A Transformation of the State or Regime Change? A Few Points of Confusion in Theory and Sociology of the State - 2011.
57
The focus here is how to define the State in such a way as to account for contemporary changes in it. Firmly anchored in the Weberian tradition, the authors develop a critique of both neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian studies that measure change in the contemporary state by comparing it to the State as it was defined during the thirty-year post-World War II economic boom. The critique targets both periodization and conceptualization. Starting with a minimalist notion of the State defined in terms of functions (security) and means as well as institutions, the authors bring to light the confusion afflicting a part of the literature and suggest the importance of clearly differentiating the question of the State from that of government. Concerned to rehabilitate the longue durée of the State, they first cite Cambridge School studies in the history of political thought with their “Ideas in context” method to show the slow emergence of both the State and the idea of the State, thereby invalidating any perspective that would assert radical change occurring over a short period. Comparing more temporally distant points in the past, they point up what is in fact the remarkable endurance of the State. They then cite Gianfranco Poggi’s theory of the constitutional State to refine their own minimalist conception. Lastly, they mobilize Raymond Aron’s notion of regime to characterize some of the changes that have been observed: those changes have been misnamed changes in the State since they actually concern not the State but government and politics. That proposition is then tested using Colin Crouch’s studies on privatized Keynesianism.
A Transformation of the State or Regime Change? A Few Points of Confusion in Theory and Sociology of the State - 2011.
57
The focus here is how to define the State in such a way as to account for contemporary changes in it. Firmly anchored in the Weberian tradition, the authors develop a critique of both neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian studies that measure change in the contemporary state by comparing it to the State as it was defined during the thirty-year post-World War II economic boom. The critique targets both periodization and conceptualization. Starting with a minimalist notion of the State defined in terms of functions (security) and means as well as institutions, the authors bring to light the confusion afflicting a part of the literature and suggest the importance of clearly differentiating the question of the State from that of government. Concerned to rehabilitate the longue durée of the State, they first cite Cambridge School studies in the history of political thought with their “Ideas in context” method to show the slow emergence of both the State and the idea of the State, thereby invalidating any perspective that would assert radical change occurring over a short period. Comparing more temporally distant points in the past, they point up what is in fact the remarkable endurance of the State. They then cite Gianfranco Poggi’s theory of the constitutional State to refine their own minimalist conception. Lastly, they mobilize Raymond Aron’s notion of regime to characterize some of the changes that have been observed: those changes have been misnamed changes in the State since they actually concern not the State but government and politics. That proposition is then tested using Colin Crouch’s studies on privatized Keynesianism.
Réseaux sociaux