TOPIC 2

Wednesday, June 25, 2025 9:16 AM

STATE IN COMPARATIVE Introduction to State

POLITICS PERSPECTIVE :
 The State is the most universal and most powerful of all social institutions.
CHARACTERISTICS AND  The State is a natural institution.
CHANGING NATURE OF  Aristotle said that the ‘Man is a social animal and by nature, s/he is a political being.’ To him, to
THE STATE IN live in the State and to be a man were identical. The state is necessary because it comes into
existence out of the basic needs of life. It continues to remain for the sake of a good life.
CAPITALIST AND
 The aims, desires, and aspirations of human beings are translated into action through the State.
SOCIALIST ECONOMIES,
AND ADVANCED AND Difficulties Faced in Comparison of States
DEVELOPING SOCIETIES  Influenced by various factors: States’ political systems and behaviors are influenced by unique
cultural, historical, and contextual factors, making universal theories challenging.
 Difficulty in accumulating data on states: Gathering accurate data on states is difficult due to
incompleteness, outdatedness, and bias, affecting comparative analyses’ reliability.
 Complexities in comparison of states: Comparing states involves analysing complex political
institutions, behaviors, and processes, posing challenges.
 Diverse political traditions and ideologies: States have diverse political traditions and ideologies,
complicating comparisons, especially due to language barriers.
 Lack of thorough understanding for accurate comparisons: Historical events shape a state’s
political landscape, necessitating a thorough understanding for accurate comparisons.
 Bias and subjectivity can affect data interpretation and conclusions, requiring researchers to
maintain objectivity.
 Rapid change in Political environments within states: It can affect comparative results over time.
Despite challenges, comparative politics offers valuable insights when researchers employ
rigorous methods.

VIEWPOINT ON STATE
 Neo-liberal viewpoint - Neo-liberals show a strong dislike towards government intervention in
economic and social life. They believe that the state can threaten both individual liberty and
economic security. They believe that the state is a self-serving monster that tries to interfere in
every aspect of life. They envisage the state's role as merely a night watchman or a policeman
state. They do not want an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient state as it is present in
Socialist states. They also do not want the State to perform unnecessary functions in the name of
a welfare state. They want the state to remain confined - to perform regulatory functions only
and not all functions. They try to identify the forces that have led to the growth of state
intervention. They want the state to become a facilitator for private enterprises.
 Neo-Pluralist viewpoint- Charles E. Lindblom and Galbraith believe that the state is the custodian
of the common good and public interest but they accept that corporate groups in advanced
industrial societies enjoy more powers than other groups.
 Marxist Viewpoint- Marxist believe that the state is an instrument of the capitalist class. It is
interested in serving not the interest of larger society but it is mainly concerned about serving the
interest of the capitalist class.
 Liberal viewpoint about the state - Liberal accept the centrality of the state in modern society.
They believe that the state performs important functions like legislative, administrative functions,
etc. The state is a neutral arbitrator among competing groups and individuals in society. Liberals
believe that the state is capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachment of fellow
citizens. The state also provides essential services to people.

Nature of State in Capitalist Society

 Capitalism in its pure form is based on the absolute domination of the free market system with
the lowest degree of property rights imperfections. However, in its pure form, such a model of
society has never been achieved so far.
 The nature of the state in capitalist societies can be analysed from two perspectives:- ➢ The
Liberal Perspective ➢ The Marxist Perspective
 Liberal Perspective of State in Capitalist Societies
➢According to classical liberals, the state is a necessary institution that works for the welfare of
people.
➢Classical liberals are of the view that a capitalist state gains legitimacy by conducting free and
fair elections. The conduction of free and fair elections maintains the representativeness and
 neutral character of the state.
➢Classical liberals opine that the state is an arena of conflict resolution and interest articulation.
➢Elitist scholars like C. Wright Mills argue that power is always concentrated in the hands of a
few. He gave the concept of the power elite. Thus, he contradicts the classical notion of the
liberal state.
➢Robert Dahl gave the concept of polyarchy. According to him, power is approximately equally
distributed among various groups or associations.
➢Neo-pluralists like Charles Lindblom and Galbraith argue that all groups do not possess equal
power. The corporate groups wield greater power than other groups.
 Marxist Perspective of State in Capitalist Societies
➢According to Classical Marxists like Lenin, the state is an instrument of exploitation and
oppression of the working class.
➢Whereas neo-Marxist scholar Antonio Gramsci talks about the relative autonomy of the state
wherein state maintains the domination of capitalist class not by coercion but by creation of
hegemony.
➢Habermass believe that welfare state as found in capitalist societies is based on the
contradictory principles. Hence there occurs legitimation crisis in these societies.

EVOLUTION OF STATE IN CAPITALIST SOCIETIES

 The nature of the state in capitalist societies has been changing constantly. Initially, the state was
a Laissez Faire State. The role of the state was to maintain law and order and to provide external
security. Thus, the state was like a Nightwatchman state or policeman state. The state was mainly
concerned about performing economic functions but later on the state changed into a Welfare
State (especially after World War II) and it went on to assume other functions like giving
employment, providing social security provisions, health, education, etc.

However, as capitalism developed and became more complex, the state’s functions expanded. ➢
 Regulation and Intervention: In response to market failures and social unrest, the state began to
intervene in the economy through regulations, welfare programs, and antitrust measures to
mitigate inequalities and ensure social stability.
 Welfare State: Especially in the mid-20th century, many capitalist countries adopted welfare state
policies, providing social safety nets, healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits to
citizens, aiming to reduce poverty and address social disparities.
 Mixed Economy: The state has played a significant role in managing and balancing the capitalist
economy, often through fiscal and monetary policies, industrial policies, and public investment in
infrastructure and key industries.
 Globalization and Neoliberalism: With the rise of globalization and neoliberal ideologies in the
late 20th century, there was a trend towards deregulation, privatization, and reducing the role of
the state in the economy. This led to the dismantling of some welfare state policies and the
promotion of free-market principles.
 Crisis Management: During economic crises, the state often intervenes more directly, through
stimulus packages, bailouts of financial institutions, and other measures to stabilize the economy
and prevent collapse.
 Environmental Regulation: In recent decades, there has been an increasing recognition of the
need for state intervention to address environmental issues, such as climate change and
pollution, through regulations, emissions trading schemes, and support for renewable energy.

 The liberal state witnessed an economic downturn because of overspending on social security
provisions. In this context, we see a change in the state.
 Neo-liberal ideology dominated the scene and scholars like Milton Friedman, Von Hayek and
Robert Nozick advocated for the rolling back of the state leading to the emergence of a regulatory
state.
 However, the state of today's advanced industrial societies is significantly different from the state
found in earlier times. Today's state in capitalist societies primarily performs the role of a
regulator but it also performs the role of providing social security measures to improve the lives
of people. For example, during covid 19 period, states perform the role of social security provider
greatly.

Overall, the evolution of the state in capitalist societies reflects a complex interplay between
economic forces, political ideologies, social demands, and historical contingencies. While the role of
the state has fluctuated over time, it continues to be a central actor in shaping and regulating
capitalist economies.

Nature of State in socialist societies

 In Marxism, the state is not the ultimate institution. The state will eventually wither away. The
state is merely a transitional institution and after the end of the state, a classless society will be
established.
 Marxism believes that often violent revolutionary dictatorship of the Proletariat will be
established and the capitalist state will end. Now the working class or Proletariat will dominate
the state structure. They will be responsible to ensure collective good through community mode
of production.
 Lenin was the first person who tried to implement Marxist ideas and he was successful in
establishing the dictatorship of the Proletariat. After Lenin, Stalin steered the USSR to the next
level- Stalin started state led socialism by initiating five-year plans. and USSR became a Very
strong state but the state which was supposed to be a transitional institution acquired permanent
character.
 Marxism talks about withering away from the state but unfortunately, it never happened and the
state became the most powerful institution in the Soviet Union.
 Socialists believe that liberal states are exploitative and that liberal states are inegalitarian states.
 Socialist Scholars believe that Socialist states are egalitarian states. These states are not
exploitative. These states are ideal. Elitist scholars Raymond Aaron and Schumpeter negated this
notion of socialist scholars.
 Several studies have been conducted on the nature of Socialist states. Those studies found that
socialist states are not egalitarian states. These states are not being dominated by workers but
rather dominated by Communist Party and its members. These states are also exploitative.
 Some scholars like Karl Popper have equated Communism with totalitarianism also. Communist
states do not allow the participation of people. These states also suffer from a legitimation crisis.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union is an example of the legitimation Crisis.
 In contemporary times, a number of other socialist states like Venezuela and Argentina have also
witnessed crisis-like situations. In 2019, the Venezuelan economy collapsed and the Argentinian
economy is about to collapse.
 It is a mute testimonial of the fact that socialism does not necessarily lead to a better life and it
also does not create egalitarianism.
 The Chinese state is also a Socialist state but It is more pragmatic in the economic sphere as
compared to other Socialist states.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former socialist states embarked on transitions
to market economies and liberal democracies, often accompanied by privatization, deregulation,
and the retreat of the state from economic and social spheres. Some socialist states, such as
China, Vietnam, and Cuba, have pursued economic reforms while maintaining political control by
the Communist Party. These countries have adopted mixed economic models, combining
elements of socialism and market oriented policies. No state is truly socialist. In case of China,
state is pragmatic wherein political sphere it is having communist setup whereas in economic
sphere it has liberalised itself.

Note: There were many reasons behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union but economic
factors remain one of the most important factors behind its disintegration.

Nature of State in Advanced Industrial Societies

 Advanced industrial states are nations where industries play a prominent role in the mode of
production. These countries, such as the UK, France, USA, Canada, Germany, and some Eastern
European nations like Russia, were the pioneers of the industrial revolution.
 They are considered developed countries and have historically been imperial powers, exerting
influence over politics, economics, culture, and ideology even after the formal era of
decolonization.
 The state in advanced industrial societies operates through complex governance structures that
include multiple branches of government, regulatory agencies, and public-private partnerships.
This complexity reflects the diverse needs and interests of a highly developed and interconnected
society.
 Advanced industrial societies often have extensive welfare states that provide comprehensive
social services to citizens.
 While advanced industrial societies generally uphold free-market principles, the state often
intervenes in the economy to address market failures, promote economic growth, and ensure
social welfare.
 The state in advanced industrial societies increasingly utilizes technology for governance, service
delivery, and communication with citizens. Digitalization, data analytics, and e-governance
platforms enhance efficiency, transparency, and accessibility in government operations.
 Since the conclusion of the Cold War up until the early 21st century, Western nations held a
 dominant position globally. However, starting from around 2001, there has been a noticeable
decline in Western hegemony, coinciding with the rise of the East. The focus of global power
began shifting from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region. BRICS countries have emerged as
challengers to Western dominance across various sectors, with manufacturing being particularly
impacted. Low-skilled workers have borne the brunt of these changes.

Nature of State in Developing Societies

Developing countries are post-colonial societies also known as the global south. These are the newly
independent states of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. There is still an impact of the
colonial past on these states. ❖ Gunnar Myrdal has given the concept of a soft state in the case of
India. If we apply the idea of Samuel P Huntington, most of these states have witnessed ‘political
decay’. In the words of Riggs, they are under ‘development trap’.
 The nature of the state in developing societies is significantly different from the capitalist states.
 These states emerged because of the wave of decolonisation that began post-World War II. A
number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America got independence through the
decolonisation process.
 The impact of colonialism can be seen in these states. These states have been analysed by
liberals, Marxists and scholars of third-world countries.
 These third-world countries suffer from a number of challenges. These third-world countries
exhibit colonial traits in almost all spheres. They lack an industrial base structure. These countries
suffer from a democratic deficit and a governance deficit.
 Even though these countries have tremendous amounts of economic resources, they lack
development in critical areas. For example-Niger exports 60 % of the total uranium imported by
France but there is no electricity in 75% of Niger.
 The same is the story with the democratic republic of Congo which has more than processing
industries. 2/3rd of the known reserves of cobalt in the world but it does not have its cobalt -
processing industries.
 These third-world countries suffer at the hands of developed countries even today (this
viewpoint has been highlighted by Marxists).

Liberal Perspective:
 According to liberals, third-world countries suffer from a democratic deficit because democratic
institutions in these states are not able to perform their envisaged functions.
 Liberals believe that the level of modernization and political development is very low in these
societies.
 These societies are still suffering from a crisis of governance.
 They are still in their transitional phase and the impact of colonial rule is quite visible in almost all
areas in these societies.
 The political culture of these societies is not well developed and the universal basis of
mobilisation is still missing because these societies are not able to mobilise people on universal
needs like health, education, employment etc. People are mobilised on the bases of parochial
ideas like religion, caste etc.

Marxist View Point:

 These societies have been analysed by Marxist scholars like A. G. Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein,
etc.
 According to Immanuel Wallerstein, these States can be characterized as:-
 Core states  Semi-Periphery states  Periphery states

 Marxist scholars believe that newly independent Countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are
still under the spell of colonial powers and their resources are being looted by countries of the
developed world. Even today these countries suffer from the problems of underdevelopment.
 Scholars like A.G. Frank and Samir Amin believe that these states suffer from the problem of
“Development of Underdevelopment”.

Post-Colonial Viewpoint: viewpoint of scholars of third world countries

 Scholars like Hamza Alavi have tried to explain the nature of these states through the concept of
Overdeveloped states.
  He explains that these states are much stronger than their counterparts in the Western world.
Certain institutions like the military and bureaucracy in these states are much more powerful
than other organs of the state.
 In these countries, the state is considered a central agency to bring development leading to the
state's control over the economic resources of the country.
 States in newly independent countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are very strong.
 States are the vehicle for social change and social transformation.
 Objectives of nation-building are being achieved through the state.
 The state is also responsible for bringing social justice.
 Hamza Alavi attributes the reason for structural change in these states to colonial domination as
well as the culture and tradition of societies.
 According to Hamza Alavi, a historical symmetry can be found between the nature of post-
colonial states. During the colonial period, there was an absence of a developed capitalist class
and bureaucracy and the military used to be very powerful. This system has continued in post-
colonial states, because of its overdeveloped nature of state apparatus is relatively autonomous
from the capitalist class or any other class. It is not the instrument of any single class. According
to Hamza Alavi, the state even performs ideological functions to create territorial unity and a
sense of nationhood.
 He explains the fact that the state is stronger and society is traditional. The modern state was
imposed by the colonial masters. ❖ States in developing societies are:- ➢ In the process of
transition. ➢ Face acute problems. ➢ Having administrative chaos. ➢ Nation-building task. ➢
Low investment in human capital. ➢ Development administration. ❖ Due to the macroeconomic
stabilisation and Structural Adjustment Programme launched by IMF, developing countries lose
economic sovereignty and control over fiscal and monetary policy.

Concluding Remarks
 Examining the state from a comparative perspective offers valuable insights into the diverse
forms and functions of governance across different societies.
 From capitalist to socialist, and advanced industrial to developing nations, states exhibit unique
characteristics shaped by historical, political, economic, and cultural [Link] understanding the
variations and similarities among states, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of
governance and the challenges and opportunities facing societies worldwide.
 Moreover, comparative analysis allows us to appreciate the dynamic nature of the state, which
evolves in response to internal and external pressures, technological advancements, and shifting
global dynamics.

Questions asked
1. What are the difficulties faced by political theorists in comparing the states? (2023)
2. “The post-colonial state was thought of as an entity that stood outside and above society as an
autonomous agency.” Explain. inclusive growth in the 21st century. (2021)
3. Describe the changing nature of state in the developing societies in the context of (2018)
4. Critically evaluate the nature of the capitalist model of development and its usefulness and
limitations for developing countries. (2005)
5. How has the development of Global Capitalism changed the nature of socialist economies and
developing societies? (15 Marks/2017)
➢