fbpx
Wikipedia

State formation

This article is about the scholarly study of state formation. For the practice of building up the structures of a state, see State-building. For the related discussion, see Nation-building.

State formation is the process of the development of a centralized government structure in a situation where one did not exist prior to its development. State formation has been a study of many disciplines of the social sciences for a number of years, so much so that Jonathan Haas writes that "One of the favorite pastimes of social scientists over the course of the past century has been to theorize about the evolution of the world's great civilizations." The study of state formation is divided generally into either the study of early states (those that developed in stateless societies) or the study of modern states (particularly of the form that developed in Europe in the 17th century and spread around the world). Academic debate about various theories is a prominent feature in fields like Anthropology, Sociology, Economics and Political Science. State formation can include state-building and nation-building.

Voters waiting in line to vote in South Sudan (2011) to decide whether to form a new state or remain with Sudan

Contents

Main article: State (polity)

A state is a political system with a centralized government, a military force, a civil service, an arranged society, and literacy. Though, there is no clear agreement on the defining characteristics of a state and the definition can vary significantly, based upon the focus of the particular definition. The state is considered to be territoriality bound and is distinct from tribes or units without centralized institutions.

According to Painter & Jeffrey, there are 5 distinctive features of the modern state:

1) They are ordered by precise boundaries with administrative control across the whole;

2) They occupy large territories with control given to organized institutions;

3) They have a capital city and are endowed with symbols that embody state power;

4) The government within state creates organizations to monitor, govern and control its population through surveillance and record keeping;

5) They increase monitoring over time.

Additionally, Herbst holds that there is another relevant characteristic of modern states: nationalism. This feeling of belonging to a certain territory plays a central role in state formation since it increases citizens' willingness to pay taxes.

Theories of state formation have two distinct focuses, depending largely on the field of study:

  1. The early transition in human society from tribal communities into larger political organizations. Studies of this topic, often in anthropology, explore the initial development of basic administrative structures in areas where states developed from stateless societies. Although state formation was an active research agenda in anthropology and archaeology until the 1980s, some of the effort has changed to focus not on why these states formed but on how they operated.
  2. In contrast, studies in political science and in sociology have focused significantly on the formation of the modern state.

Ancient state formation

Table of primary states with region and approximate time of formation from Sandeford
state region approximate date
Susa Mesopotamia, southwestern Iran ca 4000-3000 BCE
Uruk Mesopotamia, southern Iraq ca 4000–3000 BCE
Hierakonpolis upper Egypt ca 3500–3100 BCE
Harappa Indus Valley, western India, eastern Pakistan (Punjab, Rajasthan, Sind, Gujarat) ca 2600–2000 BCE
Erlitou central China (Shanxi and Henan) ca 1900–1500 BCE
Monte Albán Oaxaca valley, southern Mexico ca 300 BCE–200 CE
Teotihuacan Basin of Mexico, central Mexico ca 100–1 BCE
Virú Virú valley, coastal northern Peru ca 200 BCE–200 CE
Tiwanaku Lake Titicaca, northern Bolivia ca 300–600 CE
Hawai‘i Hawaiian islands ca 800–1800 CE

States are minimally defined by anthropologist David S. Sandeford as socially stratified and bureaucratically governed societies with at least four levels of settlement hierarchy (e.g., a large capital, cities, villages, and hamlets). Primary states are those state societies that developed in regions where no states existed before. These states developed by strictly internal processes and interaction with other non-states societies. The exact number of cases which qualify as primary states is not clearly known because of limited information about political organization before the development of writing in many places, but Sandeford lists ten likely cases of primary state formation in Eurasia, the Americas, and the Pacific.

Studies on the formation of early states tend to focus on processes that create and institutionalize a state in a situation where a state did not exist before. Examples of early states which developed in interaction with other states include the Aegean Bronze Age Greek civilizations and the Malagasy civilization in Madagascar. Unlike primary state formation, early state formation does not require the creation of the first state in that cultural context or autonomous development, independently from state development nearby. Early state formation causation can thus include borrowing, imposition, and other forms of interaction with already existing states.

Early state formation

Early state formation in Europe happened in the late 9th century to the early 11th century, as stable kingdoms formed in Germany, France, England, and Scotland; three stable, large kingdoms formed in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), as well as three in East Central Europe (Poland, Bohemia and Hungary). Historian R.I. Moore argues that 970–1215 was the crucial period in European state formation.

Historian Sverre Bagge argues that "in its main features, the European state system seems to have been formed between the division of the Carolingian Empire and around 1200. At the latter date, there were fifteen kingdoms in Europe: England, Scotland, France, Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra, Sicily, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Den- mark, Norway and Sweden." Of these 15 kingdoms, seven were still in existence by 1648. Of those that disappeared, it was usually due to marriage alliances and hereditary succession.

Modern state formation

Theories on the formation of modern states focus on the processes that support the development of modern states, particularly those that formed in late-medieval Europe and then spread around the world with colonialism. Starting in the 1940s and 1950s, with decolonization processes underway, attention began to focus on the formation and construction of modern states with significant bureaucracies, ability to tax, and territorial sovereignty around the world. However, some scholars hold that the modern state model formed in other parts of the world prior to colonialism, but that colonial structures replaced it.

Scholarship on modern state formation frequently uses European state formation as its referent point.

There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to explain why the state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own.

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. 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.

Voluntary theories

Uruk, one of the prime sites for research into early state formation.

Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as a result of some shared rational interest. The theories largely focus on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. The argument is that such pressures result in integrative pressure for rational people to unify and create a state. Much of the social contract philosophical tradition proposed a voluntary theory for state formation.

One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the hydraulic hypothesis, which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain large-scale irrigation projects. The theory was most significantly detailed by Karl August Wittfogel's argument that, in arid environments, farmers would be confronted by the production limits of small-scale irrigation. Eventually different agricultural producers would join together in response to population pressure and the arid environment, to create a state apparatus that could build and maintain large irrigation projects.

In addition to this, is what Carneiro calls the automatic hypothesis, which contends that the development of agriculture easily produces conditions necessary for the development of a state. With surplus food stocks created by agricultural development, creation of distinct worker classes and a division of labor would automatically trigger creation of the state form.

A third voluntary hypothesis, particularly common with some explanations of early state development, is that long distance trade networks created an impetus for states to develop at key locations: such as ports or oases. For example, the increased trade in the 16th century may have been a key to state formation in West African states such as Whydah, Dahomey, and the Benin Empire.

Conflict theories

Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some population over another population as key to the formation of states. In contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits, but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others. A number of different theories rely on conflict, dominance, or oppression as a causal process or as a necessary mechanism within certain conditions and they may borrow from other approaches. In general the theories highlight: economic stratification, conquest of other peoples, conflict in circumscribed areas, and the neo-evolutionary growth of bureaucracy.

Panorama of Monte Albán in present-day Mexico, seen from the South Platform. Archeologists oftentimes look for evidence of such "large-scale construction projects, trade networks, and religious systems" to identify early states.
  • Economic stratification
Friedrich Engels articulated one of the earliest theories of the state based on anthropological evidence in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884). The theory of Engels developed from study of Ancient Society (1877) by Lewis H. Morgan and from the sketches of this work by Karl Marx on the Asiatic mode of production. Engels argues that the state developed as a result of the need to protect private property. The theory contended that surplus production as a result of the development of agriculture created a division and specialization of labor, leading to classes who worked the land and to those who could devote time to other tasks. Class antagonism and the need to secure the private property of those living on the surplus production produced by agriculturalists resulted in the creation of the state. The anthropologist Morton Fried (1923-1986) further developed this approach, positing social stratification as the primary dynamic underlying the development of the state.
  • Conquest theories
Similar to the economic stratification theories, the conquest theory contends that a single city establishes a state in order to control other tribes or settlements it has conquered. The theory has its roots in the work of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) and of Jean Bodin (1530–1596), but it was first organized around anthropological evidence by Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943). Oppenheimer argues that the state was created to cement inequality between peoples that resulted from conquest.
  • Carneiro's circumscription theory
The mountain Huayna Picchu overlooks the ruins of Machu Picchu. The Andes mountains circumscribed much of the region.
Robert Carneiro developed a theory (1970) aiming to provide a more nuanced understanding of state formation by accounting for the fact that many factors (surplus agriculture, warfare, irrigation, conquest, etc.) did not produce states in all situations. He concluded that while population pressure and warfare were mechanisms of state formation, they only created states in geographic regions circumscribed, or walled off from the surrounding area. Geographic barriers (or in some cases barriers created by nomadic raiders or by rival societies) create limitations on the ability of the people to deal with production shortfalls, and the result is that warfare results in state creation. In situations of unlimited agricultural land (like the Amazon or the Eastern United States), Carneiro believes that the pressures did not exist and so warfare allowed people to move elsewhere and thus did not spur creation of a state.
  • Neoevolutionary theories
Further information: Neoevolutionism
A number of different theories, sometimes connected with some of the processes above, explain state formation in terms of the evolution of leadership systems. This argument sees human society as evolving from tribes or chiefdoms into states through a gradual process of transformation that lets a small group hierarchically structure society and maintain order through appropriation of symbols of power. Groups that gained power in tribal society gradually worked towards building the hierarchy and segmentation that created the state.
Elman Service (1915-1996) proposed that, unlike in economic stratification theories, the state largely creates stratification in society rather than being created to defend that stratification. Bureaucracy evolves to support the leadership structure in tribes and uses religious hierarchy and economic stratification as a means to further increase its power. Warfare may play a key role in the situation, because it allows leaders to distribute benefits in ways that serve their interests, however it is a constant that feeds the system rather than an autonomous factor. Similarly, anthropologist Henry T. Wright argues (2006) that competitive and conflictual environments produce political experimentation leading to the development of the state. As opposed to theories that the state develops through chance or tinkering, experimentation involves a more directed process where tribal leaders learn from organization forms of the past and from the outcomes they produced.

Other theories

Other aspects are highlighted in different theories as of contributing importance. It is sometimes claimed that technological development, religious development, or socialization of members are crucial to state development. However, most of these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological analysis. In addition to conquest, some theories contend that the need for defense from military conquest or the military organization to conquer other peoples is the key aspect leading to state formation.

Discredited theories

Some theories proposed in the 19th century and early 20th century have since been largely discredited by anthropologists. Carneiro writes that theories "with a racial basis, for example, are now so thoroughly discredited that they need not be dealt with...We can also reject the belief that the state is an expression of the 'genius' of a people, or that it arose through a 'historical accident.' Such notions make the state appear to be something metaphysical or adventitious, and thus place it beyond scientific understanding." Similarly, social Darwinist perspectives like those of Walter Bagehot in Physics and Politics argued that the state form developed as a result of the best leaders and organized societies gradually gaining power until a state resulted. Such explanations are not considered sufficient to explain the formation of the state.

In the medieval period (500-1400) in Europe, there were a variety of authority forms throughout the region. These included feudal lords, empires, religious authorities, free cities, and other authorities. Often dated to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, there began to be the development in Europe of modern states with large-scale capacity for taxation, coercive control of their populations, and advanced bureaucracies. The state became prominent in Europe over the next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the world via the colonial and international pressures of the 19th century and 20th century. Other modern states developed in Africa and Asia prior to colonialism, but were largely displaced by colonial rule.

Political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists began studying the state formation processes in Europe and elsewhere in the 17th century—beginning significantly with Max Weber. However, state formation became a primary interest in the 1970s. The question was often framed as a contest between state forces and society forces and the study of how the state became prominent over particular societies. A number of theories developed regarding state development in Europe. Other theories focused on the creation of states in late colonial and post-colonial societies. The lessons from these studies of the formation of states in the modern period are often used in theories about State-building. Other theories contend that the state in Europe was constructed in connection with peoples from outside Europe and that focusing on state formation in Europe as a foundation for study silences the diverse history of state formation.

Based on the model of European states, it has been commonly assumed that development is the natural path that states will eventually walk through. However, Herbst holds that in the case African states, as well as in developing countries of other regions, development need not be the natural step. States that struggle their consolidation could remain permanently weak.

There are 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. According to Philip Gorski and Vivek Swaroop Sharma, the "neo-Darwinian" framework for the emergence of sovereign states is the dominant explanation in the scholarship. The neo-Darwininian framework emphasizes how the modern state emerged as the dominant organizational form through natural selection and competition.

According to Hendrik Spruyt, the modern state is different from its predecessor polities in two main aspects: (1) Modern states have greater capacity to intervene in their societies, and (2) Modern states are buttressed by the principle of international legal sovereignty and the juridicial equivalence of states. The two features began to emerge in the Late Middle Ages but the modern state form took centuries to come firmly into fruition. Spruyt notes that sovereign equality did not become fully global until after World War II amid decolonization. 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.

Warfare theories

A woodcut of the Defenestrations of Prague in 1618—which began the Thirty Years' War and ended with the Peace of Westphalia that started the recognition of the modern state

Two related theories are based on military development and warfare, and the role that these forces played in state formation.

Charles Tilly developed an argument that the state developed largely as a result of "state-makers" who sought to increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they could continue fighting wars. According to Tilly, the state makes war and war makes states. In the constant warfare of the centuries in Europe, coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder, warlords had to find ways to finance war and control territory more effectively. The modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation structures, the coercive structure to implement that taxation, and finally the guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of the population to agree. Taxes and revenue raising have been repeatedly pointed out as a key aspect of state formation and the development of state capacity. Economist Nicholas Kaldor emphasized on the importance of revenue raising and warned about the dangers of the dependence on foreign aid. Tilly argues, state making is similar to organized crime because it is a "quintessential protection racket with the advantage of legitimacy." Tilly's theory is prominent in the field of historical sociology, where scholars have tended to identify the onset of modern state formation as coinciding with the military revolution in the 16th century.

Michael Roberts and Geoffrey Parker, in contrast, finds that the primary causal factor was not the "state-makers" themselves, but simply the military revolutions that allowed development of larger armies. The argument is that with the expanded state of warfare, the state became the only administrative unit that could endure in the constant warfare in the Europe of this period, because only it could develop large enough armies. This view—that the modern state replaced chaos and general violence with internal disciplinary structures—has been challenged as ethnocentric, and ignoring the violence of modern states.

War has played a key role not only in the consolidation of European states but also of some third world states. According to Herbst, external security threats have had a fundamental role in the development of the South Korean and Taiwanese states. However, Chin-Hao Huang and Dave Kang argue that Tilly's bellicist theory of state formation does not account for Korea and Japan, as they did not face intense security threats. A 2017 study which tests the predictions of warfare theories of Tilly and others found that the predictions do not match the empirical record. The study found that median state size decreased from 1100 to 1800, and that the number of states increases rapidly between the twelfth and thirteen centuries and remained constant until 1800.

Historian Sverre Bagge argues that neither external nor internal wars were important per se in processes of state formation. To what extent warfare was important in state formation, it was indirectly "by mobilizing the aristocracy in the king’s service and by necessitating drastically increased taxation and bureaucratization." Furthermore, he argues that the chronology of events in China and Europe are inconsistent with Tilly's argument that increasing costs of warfare led to processes of state formation. Substantial technological and organizational changes that raised the cost of warfare happened in Europe during the same period as when China unified, but Europe did not have unification during that period. Bagge also argues that the number of states did not meaningfully reduce, even though new military technology gave advantages to larger and wealthier units. He writes that "there are relatively few examples in Europe of kingdoms formed by conquest." Historian Ian Morris similarly disagrees with Tilly's thesis; Morris turns it around and says "War made the state and the state made peace."

Commerce theories

Other theories have emphasized the role of trade and urbanization in state formation. Stein Rokkan and others have argued that the modern territorial state developed in places that were peripheral to the commercial "city belt" ("a central regional band extending, roughly, in an arc from the Low Countries, through the Rhineland and into Northern Italy") that ran through Central Europe. The existence of prosperous urban centers that relied on commerce in Central Europe prevented rulers from consolidating their rule over others. The elites in those urban centers could rely on their wealth and on collective security institutions (like the Hanseatic or Swabian league) with other urban centers to sustain their independence. A lower density of urban centers in England and France made it easier for rulers to establish rule over expansive territories.

Feudal crisis theories

Another argument contends that the state developed out of economic and social crises that were prominent in late-medieval Europe. Religious wars between Catholics and Protestants, and the involvement of leaders in the domains of other leaders under religious reasons was the primary problem dealt with in the Peace of Westphalia. In addition, Marxist theory contends that the economic crisis of feudalism forced the aristocracy to adapt various centralized forms of organization so they could retain economic power, and this resulted in the formation of the modern state.

Cultural theories

Some scholarship, linked to wider debates in anthropology, has increasingly emphasized the state as a primarily cultural artifact, and focuses on how symbolism plays a primary role in state formation. Most explicitly, some studies emphasize how the creation of national identification and citizenship were crucial to state formation. The state then is not simply a military or economic authority, but also includes cultural components creating consent by people by giving them rights and shared belonging.

Emulation and institutions

Scholars have emphasized emulation and learning as a driver behind the diffusion of state-like institutions. Chin-Hao Huang and Dave Kang argue that state-like institutions diffused to Korea and Japan due to emulation of Chinese institutions. According to Anna Grzymala-Busse, universities and churches provided organizational templates that influenced European state formation. Medieval churches were bureaucratized, with notions of office, hierarchy and an esprit de corps among its servants.

Sverre Bagge has argued that Christianity was a key component in European state formation, as the "Church created permanent institutions which strengthened the power of the king." He also argues that the Church played an active role in legitimizing monarchies and kingdoms as systems of government in Western Christendom.

Some scholars have argued that state formation occurred through an ideological revolution, as a preference for personalized rule shifted towards depersonalized, rational-legal administration.

Marriage and dynastic politics

Sverre Bagge argues that the key factors behind the consolidation of European kingdoms were marriage alliance and hereditary succession. He notes that kingdoms frequently failed to conquer one another through warfare, but ended up merging with one another when marriage ties led the king of one kingdom to become the rightful heir to a second kingdom. He cites as examples: the union of Denmark and Norway under King Oluf of Denmark; King James VI of Scotland inheriting the English throne; and dynastic marriages in Spanish kingdoms ultimately leading to the union between Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon in 1469.

Outside Europe

While modern states existed without European influence around the world before colonialism, post-colonial state formation has received the most significant attention. While warfare is primary in theories about state formation in Europe, the development of the international norm of non-interventionism means that other processes of state formation have become prominent outside Europe (including colonial imposition, assimilation, borrowing, and some internal political processes. John W. Meyer's World Society Theory contends that the state form was exported from Europe, institutionalized in the United Nations, and gradually the modern nation-state became the basis for both those in power and those challenging power. In addition, because many of the early modern states like the United Kingdom and France had significant empires, their institutional templates became standard for application globally.

Africa

According to academics on state formation in Africa, most notably Jeffrey Herbst, in his States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control (2000) many contemporary African states lack the empirical qualities of states found in their counterparts in the developed world. This is due to the differences in the state building experience between Europe and Africa. Statebuilding in Europe was characterized by the threat of territorial wars, as such states formed as a by product of ruler's efforts in preparing for and waging war. As states in Africa were formed out of decolonization and born in an international system that respected the sovereignty of international borders, this meant that the threat of territorial conquest, which highlighted the European statebuilding experience, was absent from Africa. As such, ruling elite in Africa did not have the impetus to develop strong and effective institutional structures as the survival of the state was guaranteed by the international community. In doing so this led to the proliferation of weak states in Africa, with only juridicial statehood, in reality they lacked effectiveness and legitimacy.

Latin America as Trade-Led State Formation

Sebastián L. Mazzuca's Latecomer State Formation. Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America (2021) compares state formation in Latin America and Europe. A key argument is that state formation in Latin America was trade-led rather than war-led and that this difference explains why Latin American states have low state capacity relative to their European counterparts. In early modern western Europe, Mazzuca argues, "state formation had multiple linkages to state building. Violence monopolization required great efforts at fiscal extraction, which in turn caused the abolition of the intermediary power of local potentates and incited social demands for new public goods." In contrast, in Latin America, "the obstacles to the development of state capacities were the result of mutually convenient bargains struck by central state-makers and peripheral potentates, who, far from being eliminated during state formation, obtained institutional power to reinforce local bastions."

  1. Haas 1982, p. 1.
  2. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 523.
  3. Haas 1982, pp. 2–3.
  4. Cohen 1978, pp. 2–5.
  5. Painter & Jeffrey 2009, pp. 22–24.
  6. Herbst 1990.
  7. Spruyt 2002, p. 129.
  8. Marcus & Feinman 1998, p. 3.
  9. Spruyt 2002, p. 131.
  10. Sandeford 2018.
  11. Wright 1977, p. 386.
  12. Wright 2006, p. 306.
  13. Cohen 1978, p. 50.
  14. Bagge, Sverre (2019). State Formation in Europe, 843–1789: A Divided World. Routledge. pp. 14–24. ISBN 978-0-429-58953-9.
  15. Moore, R. I. (2000). The First European Revolution: 970-1215. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-631-22277-4.
  16. Southall 1974, p. 153.
  17. Spruyt 2002, p. 132.
  18. Blanton & Fargher 2008, p. 13.
  19. Spruyt, Hendrik (2011). Goodin, Robert E (ed.). "War, Trade, and State Formation". The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-960445-6.; Sebastián Mazzuca, Latecomer State Formation: Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021.
  20. Spencer & Redmond 2004, p. 174.
  21. Scott, James C. (2017). Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-18291-0. JSTOR j.ctv1bvnfk9.
  22. Carneiro 1970.
  23. Allen, Robert C. (1997-04-01). "Agriculture and the Origins of the State in Ancient Egypt". Explorations in Economic History. 34 (2): 135–154. doi:10.1006/exeh.1997.0673. ISSN 0014-4983.
  24. Borcan, Oana; Olsson, Ola; Putterman, Louis (2021). "Transition to agriculture and first state presence: A global analysis". Explorations in Economic History. 82: 101404. doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2021.101404. hdl:2077/57593. ISSN 0014-4983. S2CID 236427239.
  25. Ahmed, Ali T.; Stasavage, David (May 2020). "Origins of Early Democracy". American Political Science Review. 114 (2): 502–518. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000741. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 29671869.
  26. Mayshar, Joram; Moav, Omer; Neeman, Zvika (2017). "Geography, Transparency, and Institutions". American Political Science Review. 111 (3): 622–636. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000132. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 134526725.
  27. Boix, Carles (2015). Political Order and Inequality. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08943-3.
  28. Carneiro 1970, p. 733.
  29. Service 1978, p. 21.
  30. Service 1978, pp. 21–23.
  31. Service 1978, p. 30.
  32. Carneiro 1970, p. 734.
  33. Haas 1981, p. 82.
  34. Claessen & Skalnik 1978, p. 6.
  35. Service 1978, pp. 25–26.
  36. Claessen & Skalnik 1978, p. 7.
  37. Service 1978, pp. 28–29.
  38. Service 1978, p. 24.
  39. Gross 1999, p. 5.
  40. Claessen & Skalnik 1978, p. 10.
  41. Claessen & Skalnik 1978, p. 13.
  42. Carneiro 1970, pp. 734–735.
  43. Blanton & Fargher 2008, p. 8.
  44. Blanton & Fargher 2008, p. 9.
  45. Cohen 1978, p. 38.
  46. Haas 1982, p. 73.
  47. Cohen 1978, p. 51.
  48. Wright 2006, p. 316.
  49. Cohen 1978, pp. 61–68.
  50. Cohen 1978, p. 42.
  51. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 527.
  52. Axtmann 2004, p. 260.
  53. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 535.
  54. Krohn-Hansen & Nustad 2005, p. 12.
  55. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 525.
  56. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 530.
  57. Krohn-Hansen & Nustad 2005, p. 8.
  58. Spruyt 2002.
  59. Gorski, Philip; Sharma, Vivek Swaroop (2017), Strandsbjerg, Jeppe; Kaspersen, Lars Bo (eds.), "Beyond the Tilly Thesis: "Family Values" and State Formation in Latin Christendom", Does War Make States?: Investigations of Charles Tilly's Historical Sociology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 98–124, ISBN 978-1-107-14150-6
  60. Getachew, Adom (2019). Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination. Princeton University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-691-17915-5. JSTOR j.ctv3znwvg.
  61. Tilly 1985, p. 170.
  62. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 527-528.
  63. Kaldor 1963.
  64. Tilly 1985, p. 169.
  65. Bagge, Sverre (2014). Cross and Scepter: The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation. Princeton University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4008-5010-5.
  66. Thompson & Rasler 1999, p. 5.
  67. Thompson & Rasler 1999, p. 6.
  68. Krohn-Hansen & Nustad 2005, p. 19.
  69. Huang, Chin-Hao; Kang, David (2021). "State Formation in Korea and Japan, 400-800 CE: Emulation and Learning, not Bellicist Competition". International Organization: 1–31. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000254. S2CID 236554884. SSRN3776268.
  70. Abramson 2017.
  71. Bagge, Sverre (2019). State Formation in Europe, 843–1789: A Divided World. Routledge. pp. 55, 58. ISBN 978-0-429-58953-9.
  72. Morris, Ian (2014). War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-374-28600-2.
  73. Spruyt, Hendrik (2011). Goodin, Robert E (ed.). "War, Trade, and State Formation". The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-960445-6.
  74. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 529.
  75. Krohn-Hansen & Nustad 2005, p. 9.
  76. Grzymala-Busse, Anna (2020). "Beyond War and Contracts: The Medieval and Religious Roots of the European State". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 19–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032628. ISSN 1094-2939.
  77. Posen, Barry R. (1993). "Nationalism, the Mass Army, and Military Power". International Security. 18 (2): 80–124. doi:10.2307/2539098. ISSN 0162-2889. JSTOR 2539098. S2CID 154935234.
  78. Bagge, Sverre (2009). Early state formation in Scandinavia. 16. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-3-7001-6604-7. JSTOR j.ctt3fgk28.
  79. Bagge, Sverre (2019). State Formation in Europe, 843–1789: A Divided World. Routledge. pp. 143–144. ISBN 978-0-429-58953-9.
  80. Bagge, Sverre (2014). Cross and Scepter: The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation. Princeton University Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-4008-5010-5.
  81. Bagge, Sverre (2019). State Formation in Europe, 843–1789: A Divided World. Routledge. pp. 15–17. ISBN 978-0-429-58953-9.
  82. Bagge, Sverre (2014). Cross and Scepter: The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation. Princeton University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-4008-5010-5.
  83. Ejogu 2011, p. 595.
  84. Southall 1974, p. 155.
  85. Barkey & Parikh 1991, p. 531.
  86. Wimmer & Feinstein 2010, p. 769.
  87. Sebastián Mazzuca, Latecomer State Formation: Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021. p. 2.
  • Fox, John W. (2008) [1987]. Maya Postclassic state formation. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-10195-0. OCLC 297146853.
  • Kaspersen, Lars Bo and Jeppe Strandsbjerg (eds.) (2017). Does War Make States: Investigations into Charles Tilly's Historical Sociology New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nagl, Dominik (2013). No Part of the Mother Country, but Distinct Dominions - Law, State Formation and Governance in England, Massachusetts und South Carolina, 1630-1769. Berlin, Germany: LIT. ISBN 978-3-643-11817-2.[1]

State formation
State formation Language Watch Edit This article is about the scholarly study of state formation For the practice of building up the structures of a state see State building For the related discussion see Nation building State formation is the process of the development of a centralized government structure in a situation where one did not exist prior to its development State formation has been a study of many disciplines of the social sciences for a number of years so much so that Jonathan Haas writes that One of the favorite pastimes of social scientists over the course of the past century has been to theorize about the evolution of the world s great civilizations 1 The study of state formation is divided generally into either the study of early states those that developed in stateless societies or the study of modern states particularly of the form that developed in Europe in the 17th century and spread around the world Academic debate about various theories is a prominent feature in fields like Anthropology Sociology Economics and Political Science 2 State formation can include state building and nation building Voters waiting in line to vote in South Sudan 2011 to decide whether to form a new state or remain with Sudan Contents 1 The state 2 Explaining early states and explaining modern states 2 1 Ancient state formation 2 2 Early state formation 2 3 Modern state formation 3 Theories about early state development 3 1 Voluntary theories 3 2 Conflict theories 3 3 Other theories 3 4 Discredited theories 4 Theories about modern state development 4 1 Warfare theories 4 2 Commerce theories 4 3 Feudal crisis theories 4 4 Cultural theories 4 5 Emulation and institutions 4 6 Marriage and dynastic politics 4 7 Outside Europe 5 See also 6 Notes 7 Bibliography 8 Further readingThe state EditMain article State polity A state is a political system with a centralized government a military force a civil service an arranged society and literacy Though there is no clear agreement on the defining characteristics of a state and the definition can vary significantly based upon the focus of the particular definition 3 The state is considered to be territoriality bound and is distinct from tribes or units without centralized institutions 4 According to Painter amp Jeffrey there are 5 distinctive features of the modern state 1 They are ordered by precise boundaries with administrative control across the whole 2 They occupy large territories with control given to organized institutions 3 They have a capital city and are endowed with symbols that embody state power 4 The government within state creates organizations to monitor govern and control its population through surveillance and record keeping 5 They increase monitoring over time 5 Additionally Herbst holds that there is another relevant characteristic of modern states nationalism This feeling of belonging to a certain territory plays a central role in state formation since it increases citizens willingness to pay taxes 6 Explaining early states and explaining modern states EditTheories of state formation have two distinct focuses depending largely on the field of study The early transition in human society from tribal communities into larger political organizations Studies of this topic often in anthropology explore the initial development of basic administrative structures in areas where states developed from stateless societies 7 Although state formation was an active research agenda in anthropology and archaeology until the 1980s some of the effort has changed to focus not on why these states formed but on how they operated 8 In contrast studies in political science and in sociology have focused significantly on the formation of the modern state 9 Ancient state formation Edit Table of primary states with region and approximate time of formation from Sandeford 10 state region approximate dateSusa Mesopotamia southwestern Iran ca 4000 3000 BCEUruk Mesopotamia southern Iraq ca 4000 3000 BCEHierakonpolis upper Egypt ca 3500 3100 BCEHarappa Indus Valley western India eastern Pakistan Punjab Rajasthan Sind Gujarat ca 2600 2000 BCEErlitou central China Shanxi and Henan ca 1900 1500 BCEMonte Alban Oaxaca valley southern Mexico ca 300 BCE 200 CETeotihuacan Basin of Mexico central Mexico ca 100 1 BCEViru Viru valley coastal northern Peru ca 200 BCE 200 CETiwanaku Lake Titicaca northern Bolivia ca 300 600 CEHawai i Hawaiian islands ca 800 1800 CE States are minimally defined by anthropologist David S Sandeford as socially stratified and bureaucratically governed societies with at least four levels of settlement hierarchy e g a large capital cities villages and hamlets Primary states are those state societies that developed in regions where no states existed before These states developed by strictly internal processes and interaction with other non states societies 10 The exact number of cases which qualify as primary states is not clearly known because of limited information about political organization before the development of writing in many places 11 but Sandeford lists ten likely cases of primary state formation in Eurasia the Americas and the Pacific 10 Studies on the formation of early states tend to focus on processes that create and institutionalize a state in a situation where a state did not exist before Examples of early states which developed in interaction with other states include the Aegean Bronze Age Greek civilizations and the Malagasy civilization in Madagascar 12 Unlike primary state formation early state formation does not require the creation of the first state in that cultural context or autonomous development independently from state development nearby Early state formation causation can thus include borrowing imposition and other forms of interaction with already existing states 13 Early state formation Edit Early state formation in Europe happened in the late 9th century to the early 11th century as stable kingdoms formed in Germany France England and Scotland three stable large kingdoms formed in Scandinavia Denmark Norway and Sweden as well as three in East Central Europe Poland Bohemia and Hungary 14 Historian R I Moore argues that 970 1215 was the crucial period in European state formation 15 Historian Sverre Bagge argues that in its main features the European state system seems to have been formed between the division of the Carolingian Empire and around 1200 At the latter date there were fifteen kingdoms in Europe England Scotland France Castile Aragon Portugal Navarra Sicily Germany Poland Bohemia Hungary Den mark Norway and Sweden 14 Of these 15 kingdoms seven were still in existence by 1648 14 Of those that disappeared it was usually due to marriage alliances and hereditary succession 14 Modern state formation Edit Theories on the formation of modern states focus on the processes that support the development of modern states particularly those that formed in late medieval Europe and then spread around the world with colonialism Starting in the 1940s and 1950s with decolonization processes underway attention began to focus on the formation and construction of modern states with significant bureaucracies ability to tax and territorial sovereignty around the world 16 17 However some scholars hold that the modern state model formed in other parts of the world prior to colonialism but that colonial structures replaced it 18 Scholarship on modern state formation frequently uses European state formation as its referent point 19 Theories about early state development EditThere are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to explain why the state developed in some places but not others Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own 20 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 21 22 23 24 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 21 25 26 27 Voluntary theories Edit Uruk one of the prime sites for research into early state formation Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as a result of some shared rational interest 28 The theories largely focus on the development of agriculture and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation The argument is that such pressures result in integrative pressure for rational people to unify and create a state 29 Much of the social contract philosophical tradition proposed a voluntary theory for state formation 30 One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the hydraulic hypothesis which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain large scale irrigation projects 31 The theory was most significantly detailed by Karl August Wittfogel s argument that in arid environments farmers would be confronted by the production limits of small scale irrigation Eventually different agricultural producers would join together in response to population pressure and the arid environment to create a state apparatus that could build and maintain large irrigation projects 32 In addition to this is what Carneiro calls the automatic hypothesis which contends that the development of agriculture easily produces conditions necessary for the development of a state With surplus food stocks created by agricultural development creation of distinct worker classes and a division of labor would automatically trigger creation of the state form 28 A third voluntary hypothesis particularly common with some explanations of early state development is that long distance trade networks created an impetus for states to develop at key locations such as ports or oases For example the increased trade in the 16th century may have been a key to state formation in West African states such as Whydah Dahomey and the Benin Empire 31 Conflict theories Edit Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some population over another population as key to the formation of states 32 In contrast with voluntary theories these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others A number of different theories rely on conflict dominance or oppression as a causal process or as a necessary mechanism within certain conditions and they may borrow from other approaches In general the theories highlight economic stratification conquest of other peoples conflict in circumscribed areas and the neo evolutionary growth of bureaucracy Panorama of Monte Alban in present day Mexico seen from the South Platform Archeologists oftentimes look for evidence of such large scale construction projects trade networks and religious systems to identify early states 33 Economic stratificationFriedrich Engels articulated one of the earliest theories of the state based on anthropological evidence in The Origin of the Family Private Property and the State 1884 34 The theory of Engels developed from study of Ancient Society 1877 by Lewis H Morgan and from the sketches of this work by Karl Marx on the Asiatic mode of production 35 Engels argues that the state developed as a result of the need to protect private property The theory contended that surplus production as a result of the development of agriculture created a division and specialization of labor leading to classes who worked the land and to those who could devote time to other tasks Class antagonism and the need to secure the private property of those living on the surplus production produced by agriculturalists resulted in the creation of the state 36 The anthropologist Morton Fried 1923 1986 further developed this approach positing social stratification as the primary dynamic underlying the development of the state 37 dd Conquest theoriesSimilar to the economic stratification theories the conquest theory contends that a single city establishes a state in order to control other tribes or settlements it has conquered The theory has its roots in the work of Ibn Khaldun 1332 1406 and of Jean Bodin 1530 1596 but it was first organized around anthropological evidence by Franz Oppenheimer 1864 1943 38 39 Oppenheimer argues that the state was created to cement inequality between peoples that resulted from conquest 40 dd Carneiro s circumscription theory The mountain Huayna Picchu overlooks the ruins of Machu Picchu The Andes mountains circumscribed much of the region Main article Carneiro s circumscription theoryRobert Carneiro developed a theory 1970 22 aiming to provide a more nuanced understanding of state formation by accounting for the fact that many factors surplus agriculture warfare irrigation conquest etc did not produce states in all situations He concluded that while population pressure and warfare were mechanisms of state formation they only created states in geographic regions circumscribed or walled off from the surrounding area 41 Geographic barriers or in some cases barriers created by nomadic raiders or by rival societies create limitations on the ability of the people to deal with production shortfalls and the result is that warfare results in state creation 37 In situations of unlimited agricultural land like the Amazon or the Eastern United States Carneiro believes that the pressures did not exist and so warfare allowed people to move elsewhere and thus did not spur creation of a state 42 dd Neoevolutionary theories Further information NeoevolutionismA number of different theories sometimes connected with some of the processes above explain state formation in terms of the evolution of leadership systems This argument sees human society as evolving from tribes or chiefdoms into states through a gradual process of transformation that lets a small group hierarchically structure society and maintain order through appropriation of symbols of power 43 Groups that gained power in tribal society gradually worked towards building the hierarchy and segmentation that created the state 44 dd Elman Service 1915 1996 proposed that unlike in economic stratification theories the state largely creates stratification in society rather than being created to defend that stratification 45 Bureaucracy evolves to support the leadership structure in tribes and uses religious hierarchy and economic stratification as a means to further increase its power 46 Warfare may play a key role in the situation because it allows leaders to distribute benefits in ways that serve their interests however it is a constant that feeds the system rather than an autonomous factor 47 Similarly anthropologist Henry T Wright argues 2006 that competitive and conflictual environments produce political experimentation leading to the development of the state As opposed to theories that the state develops through chance or tinkering experimentation involves a more directed process where tribal leaders learn from organization forms of the past and from the outcomes they produced 48 dd Other theories Edit Other aspects are highlighted in different theories as of contributing importance It is sometimes claimed that technological development religious development or socialization of members are crucial to state development However most of these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological analysis 49 In addition to conquest some theories contend that the need for defense from military conquest or the military organization to conquer other peoples is the key aspect leading to state formation 31 Discredited theories Edit Some theories proposed in the 19th century and early 20th century have since been largely discredited by anthropologists Carneiro writes that theories with a racial basis for example are now so thoroughly discredited that they need not be dealt with We can also reject the belief that the state is an expression of the genius of a people or that it arose through a historical accident Such notions make the state appear to be something metaphysical or adventitious and thus place it beyond scientific understanding 28 Similarly social Darwinist perspectives like those of Walter Bagehot in Physics and Politics argued that the state form developed as a result of the best leaders and organized societies gradually gaining power until a state resulted Such explanations are not considered sufficient to explain the formation of the state 38 50 Theories about modern state development EditIn the medieval period 500 1400 in Europe there were a variety of authority forms throughout the region These included feudal lords empires religious authorities free cities and other authorities 51 Often dated to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia there began to be the development in Europe of modern states with large scale capacity for taxation coercive control of their populations and advanced bureaucracies 52 The state became prominent in Europe over the next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the world via the colonial and international pressures of the 19th century and 20th century 53 Other modern states developed in Africa and Asia prior to colonialism but were largely displaced by colonial rule 54 Political scientists sociologists and anthropologists began studying the state formation processes in Europe and elsewhere in the 17th century beginning significantly with Max Weber However state formation became a primary interest in the 1970s The question was often framed as a contest between state forces and society forces and the study of how the state became prominent over particular societies 55 A number of theories developed regarding state development in Europe Other theories focused on the creation of states in late colonial and post colonial societies 56 The lessons from these studies of the formation of states in the modern period are often used in theories about State building Other theories contend that the state in Europe was constructed in connection with peoples from outside Europe and that focusing on state formation in Europe as a foundation for study silences the diverse history of state formation 57 Based on the model of European states it has been commonly assumed that development is the natural path that states will eventually walk through However Herbst holds that in the case African states as well as in developing countries of other regions development need not be the natural step States that struggle their consolidation could remain permanently weak 6 There are 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 58 According to Philip Gorski and Vivek Swaroop Sharma the neo Darwinian framework for the emergence of sovereign states is the dominant explanation in the scholarship 59 The neo Darwininian framework emphasizes how the modern state emerged as the dominant organizational form through natural selection and competition 59 According to Hendrik Spruyt the modern state is different from its predecessor polities in two main aspects 1 Modern states have greater capacity to intervene in their societies and 2 Modern states are buttressed by the principle of international legal sovereignty and the juridicial equivalence of states 58 The two features began to emerge in the Late Middle Ages but the modern state form took centuries to come firmly into fruition 58 Spruyt notes that sovereign equality did not become fully global until after World War II amid decolonization 58 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 60 Warfare theories Edit A woodcut of the Defenestrations of Prague in 1618 which began the Thirty Years War and ended with the Peace of Westphalia that started the recognition of the modern state Two related theories are based on military development and warfare and the role that these forces played in state formation Charles Tilly developed an argument that the state developed largely as a result of state makers who sought to increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they could continue fighting wars 51 According to Tilly the state makes war and war makes states 61 In the constant warfare of the centuries in Europe coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder warlords had to find ways to finance war and control territory more effectively The modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation structures the coercive structure to implement that taxation and finally the guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of the population to agree 62 Taxes and revenue raising have been repeatedly pointed out as a key aspect of state formation and the development of state capacity Economist Nicholas Kaldor emphasized on the importance of revenue raising and warned about the dangers of the dependence on foreign aid 63 Tilly argues state making is similar to organized crime because it is a quintessential protection racket with the advantage of legitimacy 64 Tilly s theory is prominent in the field of historical sociology where scholars have tended to identify the onset of modern state formation as coinciding with the military revolution in the 16th century 65 Michael Roberts and Geoffrey Parker in contrast finds that the primary causal factor was not the state makers themselves but simply the military revolutions that allowed development of larger armies 66 The argument is that with the expanded state of warfare the state became the only administrative unit that could endure in the constant warfare in the Europe of this period because only it could develop large enough armies 67 This view that the modern state replaced chaos and general violence with internal disciplinary structures has been challenged as ethnocentric and ignoring the violence of modern states 68 War has played a key role not only in the consolidation of European states but also of some third world states According to Herbst external security threats have had a fundamental role in the development of the South Korean and Taiwanese states 6 However Chin Hao Huang and Dave Kang argue that Tilly s bellicist theory of state formation does not account for Korea and Japan as they did not face intense security threats 69 A 2017 study which tests the predictions of warfare theories of Tilly and others found that the predictions do not match the empirical record 70 The study found that median state size decreased from 1100 to 1800 and that the number of states increases rapidly between the twelfth and thirteen centuries and remained constant until 1800 70 Historian Sverre Bagge argues that neither external nor internal wars were important per se in processes of state formation 71 To what extent warfare was important in state formation it was indirectly by mobilizing the aristocracy in the king s service and by necessitating drastically increased taxation and bureaucratization 71 Furthermore he argues that the chronology of events in China and Europe are inconsistent with Tilly s argument that increasing costs of warfare led to processes of state formation 14 Substantial technological and organizational changes that raised the cost of warfare happened in Europe during the same period as when China unified but Europe did not have unification during that period 14 Bagge also argues that the number of states did not meaningfully reduce even though new military technology gave advantages to larger and wealthier units 14 He writes that there are relatively few examples in Europe of kingdoms formed by conquest 14 Historian Ian Morris similarly disagrees with Tilly s thesis Morris turns it around and says War made the state and the state made peace 72 Commerce theories Edit Other theories have emphasized the role of trade and urbanization in state formation 73 Stein Rokkan and others have argued that the modern territorial state developed in places that were peripheral to the commercial city belt a central regional band extending roughly in an arc from the Low Countries through the Rhineland and into Northern Italy that ran through Central Europe 70 The existence of prosperous urban centers that relied on commerce in Central Europe prevented rulers from consolidating their rule over others 70 The elites in those urban centers could rely on their wealth and on collective security institutions like the Hanseatic or Swabian league with other urban centers to sustain their independence A lower density of urban centers in England and France made it easier for rulers to establish rule over expansive territories 70 Feudal crisis theories Edit Another argument contends that the state developed out of economic and social crises that were prominent in late medieval Europe Religious wars between Catholics and Protestants and the involvement of leaders in the domains of other leaders under religious reasons was the primary problem dealt with in the Peace of Westphalia 52 In addition Marxist theory contends that the economic crisis of feudalism forced the aristocracy to adapt various centralized forms of organization so they could retain economic power and this resulted in the formation of the modern state 74 Cultural theories Edit Some scholarship linked to wider debates in anthropology has increasingly emphasized the state as a primarily cultural artifact and focuses on how symbolism plays a primary role in state formation 75 Most explicitly some studies emphasize how the creation of national identification and citizenship were crucial to state formation The state then is not simply a military or economic authority but also includes cultural components creating consent by people by giving them rights and shared belonging 56 Emulation and institutions Edit Scholars have emphasized emulation and learning as a driver behind the diffusion of state like institutions 76 69 77 Chin Hao Huang and Dave Kang argue that state like institutions diffused to Korea and Japan due to emulation of Chinese institutions 69 According to Anna Grzymala Busse universities and churches provided organizational templates that influenced European state formation 76 Medieval churches were bureaucratized with notions of office hierarchy and an esprit de corps among its servants 78 79 80 Sverre Bagge has argued that Christianity was a key component in European state formation as the Church created permanent institutions which strengthened the power of the king 81 He also argues that the Church played an active role in legitimizing monarchies and kingdoms as systems of government in Western Christendom 82 Some scholars have argued that state formation occurred through an ideological revolution as a preference for personalized rule shifted towards depersonalized rational legal administration 73 Marriage and dynastic politics Edit Sverre Bagge argues that the key factors behind the consolidation of European kingdoms were marriage alliance and hereditary succession 14 He notes that kingdoms frequently failed to conquer one another through warfare but ended up merging with one another when marriage ties led the king of one kingdom to become the rightful heir to a second kingdom 14 He cites as examples the union of Denmark and Norway under King Oluf of Denmark King James VI of Scotland inheriting the English throne and dynastic marriages in Spanish kingdoms ultimately leading to the union between Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon in 1469 14 Outside Europe Edit While modern states existed without European influence around the world before colonialism 83 post colonial state formation has received the most significant attention 84 While warfare is primary in theories about state formation in Europe the development of the international norm of non interventionism means that other processes of state formation have become prominent outside Europe including colonial imposition assimilation borrowing and some internal political processes 85 84 John W Meyer s World Society Theory contends that the state form was exported from Europe institutionalized in the United Nations and gradually the modern nation state became the basis for both those in power and those challenging power 86 In addition because many of the early modern states like the United Kingdom and France had significant empires their institutional templates became standard for application globally 86 Africa According to academics on state formation in Africa most notably Jeffrey Herbst in his States and Power in Africa Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control 2000 many contemporary African states lack the empirical qualities of states found in their counterparts in the developed world This is due to the differences in the state building experience between Europe and Africa Statebuilding in Europe was characterized by the threat of territorial wars as such states formed as a by product of ruler s efforts in preparing for and waging war As states in Africa were formed out of decolonization and born in an international system that respected the sovereignty of international borders this meant that the threat of territorial conquest which highlighted the European statebuilding experience was absent from Africa As such ruling elite in Africa did not have the impetus to develop strong and effective institutional structures as the survival of the state was guaranteed by the international community In doing so this led to the proliferation of weak states in Africa with only juridicial statehood in reality they lacked effectiveness and legitimacy Latin America as Trade Led State Formation Sebastian L Mazzuca s Latecomer State Formation Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America 2021 compares state formation in Latin America and Europe A key argument is that state formation in Latin America was trade led rather than war led and that this difference explains why Latin American states have low state capacity relative to their European counterparts In early modern western Europe Mazzuca argues state formation had multiple linkages to state building Violence monopolization required great efforts at fiscal extraction which in turn caused the abolition of the intermediary power of local potentates and incited social demands for new public goods In contrast in Latin America the obstacles to the development of state capacities were the result of mutually convenient bargains struck by central state makers and peripheral potentates who far from being eliminated during state formation obtained institutional power to reinforce local bastions 87 See also EditCivil Society Sovereignty Global governance State of natureNotes Edit Haas 1982 p 1 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 523 Haas 1982 pp 2 3 Cohen 1978 pp 2 5 Painter amp Jeffrey 2009 pp 22 24 a b c Herbst 1990 Spruyt 2002 p 129 Marcus amp Feinman 1998 p 3 Spruyt 2002 p 131 a b c Sandeford 2018 Wright 1977 p 386 Wright 2006 p 306 Cohen 1978 p 50 a b c d e f g h i j k Bagge Sverre 2019 State Formation in Europe 843 1789 A Divided World Routledge pp 14 24 ISBN 978 0 429 58953 9 Moore R I 2000 The First European Revolution 970 1215 Wiley ISBN 978 0 631 22277 4 Southall 1974 p 153 Spruyt 2002 p 132 Blanton amp Fargher 2008 p 13 Spruyt Hendrik 2011 Goodin Robert E ed War Trade and State Formation The Oxford Handbook of Political Science doi 10 1093 oxfordhb 9780199604456 001 0001 ISBN 978 0 19 960445 6 Sebastian Mazzuca Latecomer State Formation Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America New Haven CT Yale University Press 2021 Spencer amp Redmond 2004 p 174 a b Scott James C 2017 Against the Grain A Deep History of the Earliest States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0 300 18291 0 JSTOR j ctv1bvnfk9 a b Carneiro 1970 Allen Robert C 1997 04 01 Agriculture and the Origins of the State in Ancient Egypt Explorations in Economic History 34 2 135 154 doi 10 1006 exeh 1997 0673 ISSN 0014 4983 Borcan Oana Olsson Ola Putterman Louis 2021 Transition to agriculture and first state presence A global analysis Explorations in Economic History 82 101404 doi 10 1016 j eeh 2021 101404 hdl 2077 57593 ISSN 0014 4983 S2CID 236427239 Ahmed Ali T Stasavage David May 2020 Origins of Early Democracy American Political Science Review 114 2 502 518 doi 10 1017 S0003055419000741 ISSN 0003 0554 S2CID 29671869 Mayshar Joram Moav Omer Neeman Zvika 2017 Geography Transparency and Institutions American Political Science Review 111 3 622 636 doi 10 1017 S0003055417000132 ISSN 0003 0554 S2CID 134526725 Boix Carles 2015 Political Order and Inequality Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 1 107 08943 3 a b c Carneiro 1970 p 733 Service 1978 p 21 Service 1978 pp 21 23 a b c Service 1978 p 30 a b Carneiro 1970 p 734 Haas 1981 p 82 Claessen amp Skalnik 1978 p 6 Service 1978 pp 25 26 Claessen amp Skalnik 1978 p 7 a b Service 1978 pp 28 29 a b Service 1978 p 24 Gross 1999 p 5 Claessen amp Skalnik 1978 p 10 Claessen amp Skalnik 1978 p 13 Carneiro 1970 pp 734 735 Blanton amp Fargher 2008 p 8 Blanton amp Fargher 2008 p 9 Cohen 1978 p 38 Haas 1982 p 73 Cohen 1978 p 51 Wright 2006 p 316 Cohen 1978 pp 61 68 Cohen 1978 p 42 a b Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 527 a b Axtmann 2004 p 260 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 535 Krohn Hansen amp Nustad 2005 p 12 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 525 a b Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 530 Krohn Hansen amp Nustad 2005 p 8 a b c d Spruyt 2002 a b Gorski Philip Sharma Vivek Swaroop 2017 Strandsbjerg Jeppe Kaspersen Lars Bo eds Beyond the Tilly Thesis Family Values and State Formation in Latin Christendom Does War Make States Investigations of Charles Tilly s Historical Sociology Cambridge University Press pp 98 124 ISBN 978 1 107 14150 6 Getachew Adom 2019 Worldmaking after Empire The Rise and Fall of Self Determination Princeton University Press pp 73 74 ISBN 978 0 691 17915 5 JSTOR j ctv3znwvg Tilly 1985 p 170 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 527 528 Kaldor 1963 Tilly 1985 p 169 Bagge Sverre 2014 Cross and Scepter The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation Princeton University Press p 4 ISBN 978 1 4008 5010 5 Thompson amp Rasler 1999 p 5 Thompson amp Rasler 1999 p 6 Krohn Hansen amp Nustad 2005 p 19 a b c Huang Chin Hao Kang David 2021 State Formation in Korea and Japan 400 800 CE Emulation and Learning not Bellicist Competition International Organization 1 31 doi 10 1017 S0020818321000254 S2CID 236554884 SSRN 3776268 a b c d e Abramson 2017 a b Bagge Sverre 2019 State Formation in Europe 843 1789 A Divided World Routledge pp 55 58 ISBN 978 0 429 58953 9 Morris Ian 2014 War What Is It Good For Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots Macmillan ISBN 978 0 374 28600 2 a b Spruyt Hendrik 2011 Goodin Robert E ed War Trade and State Formation The Oxford Handbook of Political Science doi 10 1093 oxfordhb 9780199604456 001 0001 ISBN 978 0 19 960445 6 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 529 Krohn Hansen amp Nustad 2005 p 9 a b Grzymala Busse Anna 2020 Beyond War and Contracts The Medieval and Religious Roots of the European State Annual Review of Political Science 23 1 19 36 doi 10 1146 annurev polisci 050718 032628 ISSN 1094 2939 Posen Barry R 1993 Nationalism the Mass Army and Military Power International Security 18 2 80 124 doi 10 2307 2539098 ISSN 0162 2889 JSTOR 2539098 S2CID 154935234 Bagge Sverre 2009 Early state formation in Scandinavia 16 Austrian Academy of Sciences Press pp 151 153 ISBN 978 3 7001 6604 7 JSTOR j ctt3fgk28 Bagge Sverre 2019 State Formation in Europe 843 1789 A Divided World Routledge pp 143 144 ISBN 978 0 429 58953 9 Bagge Sverre 2014 Cross and Scepter The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation Princeton University Press p 78 ISBN 978 1 4008 5010 5 Bagge Sverre 2019 State Formation in Europe 843 1789 A Divided World Routledge pp 15 17 ISBN 978 0 429 58953 9 Bagge Sverre 2014 Cross and Scepter The Rise of the Scandinavian Kingdoms from the Vikings to the Reformation Princeton University Press p 6 ISBN 978 1 4008 5010 5 Ejogu 2011 p 595 a b Southall 1974 p 155 Barkey amp Parikh 1991 p 531 a b Wimmer amp Feinstein 2010 p 769 Sebastian Mazzuca Latecomer State Formation Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America New Haven CT Yale University Press 2021 p 2 Bibliography EditAbramson Scott F 2017 The Economic Origins of the Territorial State International Organization 71 1 97 130 doi 10 1017 S0020818316000308 ISSN 0020 8183 Axtmann Roland 2004 The State of the State The Model of the Modern State and Its Contemporary Transformations International Political Science Review 25 3 259 279 doi 10 1177 0192512104043016 S2CID 145379964 subscription required Barkey Karen Parikh Sunita 1991 Comparative Perspectives on the State Annual Review of Sociology 17 523 549 doi 10 1146 annurev soc 17 1 523 JSTOR 2083353 subscription required Blanton Richard Fargher Lane 2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Pre Modern States New York Springer OCLC 209984839 Carneiro Robert L 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State Science 169 3947 733 738 Bibcode 1970Sci 169 733C doi 10 1126 science 169 3947 733 JSTOR 1729765 PMID 17820299 S2CID 11536431 subscription required Claessen Henri J M Skalnik Peter 1978 The Early State Theories and Hypotheses In Henri J M Claessen Peter Skalnik eds The Early State New York Mouton Publishers pp 3 29 ISBN 9789027979049 OCLC 4781474 Cohen Ronald 1978 State Origins A Reappraisal In Henri J M Claessen Peter Skalnik eds The Early State New York Mouton Publishers pp 31 75 ISBN 9789027979049 OCLC 4781474 Ejogu E C 2011 State Building in the Niger Basin in the Common Era and Beyond 1000 Mid 1800s The Case of Yorubaland Journal of Asian and African Studies 46 6 593 616 doi 10 1177 0021909611405831 S2CID 145180641 subscription required Gross Feliks 1999 Citizenship and Ethnicity The Growth of Development of a Democratic Multiethnic Institution Westport CT Greenwood Publishing ISBN 9780313309328 Haas Jonathan 1981 Class Conflict and the State in the New World In Grant D Jones Robert R Kautz eds The Transition to Statehood in the New World Cambridge Cambridge University Press pp 80 104 Haas Jonathan 1982 The Evolution of the Prehistoric State New York Columbia University Press ISBN 9780231053389 OCLC 8171126 Herbst Jeffrey 1990 War and the State in Africa International Security 14 4 117 139 doi 10 2307 2538753 JSTOR 2538753 S2CID 153804691 Kaldor Nicholas 1963 Will underdeveloped countries learn to tax Foreign Affairs 41 2 410 419 doi 10 2307 20029626 JSTOR 20029626 Krohn Hansen Christian Nustad Knut G 2005 Introduction In Christian Krohn Hansen Knut G Nustad eds State Formation Anthropological Perspectives London Pluto Press pp 3 26 OCLC 815686763 Marcus Joyce Feinman Gary M 1998 Introduction In Gary M Feinman Joyce Marcus eds Archaic States Santa Fe New Mexico School of American Research Press pp 3 13 OCLC 38120578 Mazzuca Sebastian L Latecomer State Formation Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America New Haven CT Yale University Press 2021 Painter Joe Jeffrey Alex 2009 Political Geography London SAGE Publications Ltd pp 22 24 ISBN 978 1 4129 0138 3 Sandeford David S 2018 Organizational complexity and demographic scale in primary state Royal Society Open Science 5 5 171137 Bibcode 2018RSOS 571137S doi 10 1098 rsos 171137 PMC 5990841 PMID 29892345 Service Elman R 1978 Classical and Modern Theories on the Origins of Government In Ronald Cohen Elman R Service eds Origins of the State The Anthropology of Political Evolution Philadelphia PA ISHI pp 21 34 ISBN 9780915980840 OCLC 3558908 Southall Aidan 1974 State Formation in Africa Annual Review of Anthropology 3 153 165 doi 10 1146 annurev an 03 100174 001101 JSTOR 2949286 subscription required Spencer Charles S Redmond Elsa M 2004 Primary State Formation in Mesoamerica Annual Review of Anthropology 33 173 199 doi 10 1146 annurev anthro 33 070203 143823 JSTOR 25064850 subscription required Spruyt Hendrik 2002 The Origins Development and Possible Decline of the Modern State Annual Review of Political Science 5 127 149 doi 10 1146 annurev polisci 5 101501 145837 subscription required Thompson William R Rasler Karen 1999 War the Military Revolution s Controversy and Army Expansion A Test of Two Explanations of Historical Influences on European State Making Comparative Political Studies 32 1 3 31 doi 10 1177 0010414099032001001 S2CID 153973953 subscription required Tilly Charles 1985 War Making and State Making as Organized Crime In Peter Evans Dietrich Rueschemeyer Theda Skocpol eds Bringing the State Back In Cambridge Cambridge University Press pp 169 191 Wimmer Andreas Feinstein Yuval 2010 The Rise of the Nation State across the World 1816 to 2001 American Sociological Review 75 3 764 790 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 690 9400 doi 10 1177 0003122410382639 S2CID 10075481 subscription required Wright Henry T 1977 Recent Research on the Origin of the State Annual Review of Anthropology 6 379 397 doi 10 1146 annurev an 06 100177 002115 JSTOR 2949337 subscription required Wright Henry T 2006 Early State Dynamics as Political Experiment Journal of Anthropological Research 62 3 305 319 doi 10 3998 jar 0521004 0062 301 JSTOR 20371027 S2CID 144973163 subscription required Further reading EditFox John W 2008 1987 Maya Postclassic state formation Cambridge UK and New York USA Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 10195 0 OCLC 297146853 Kaspersen Lars Bo and Jeppe Strandsbjerg eds 2017 Does War Make States Investigations into Charles Tilly s Historical Sociology New York Cambridge University Press Nagl Dominik 2013 No Part of the Mother Country but Distinct Dominions Law State Formation and Governance in England Massachusetts und South Carolina 1630 1769 Berlin Germany LIT ISBN 978 3 643 11817 2 1 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title State formation amp oldid 1053371813, wikipedia, wiki, book,

books

, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.