in
Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
- social science had (in 1985) become very society centered, and the state wasn't well understood as an actor with agency
- the Weberian view of the state demands we see the state as structuring state-society relations AND affecting relations within civil society, though it is not totalizing in the sense that other organizations can have similar influence (7-8)
- why do states formulate and purse their own goals? (i.e. why do states go beyond the demands of civil society) (9-10)
- basic needs of manitaining order internally and form external threats
- social inclusion counts as part of this
- corporatist regimes in Peru and Brazil as a way to limit internal social conflict (10)
- state autonomy is not a fixed structural feature in of any governmental system, it can come and go, beause the state tranforms over time, can gain and lose power in relation to societal forces, and can gain or lose autonomy in the same way (14)
- the state can never truly be disinterested (15)
- state capacities should be understood as relational rather than objectively measurable...they are only as powerful as those other organizations over whom they hope to prevail, or influence (19), ESPECIALLY SOCIOECONOMIC OR SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT
- the design of a state can also have important implications on the patterns and structure of civil society...that is to say, the way a state is structure can influence the way a society works (21)
- conclusion: (28)
- states can be coneived of as
- organizations with their own goals that they are more or less able to achieve, or
- "configurations of organization" that structure action and influence politics of all classes in society
No comments:
Post a Comment