epistemologie de la finance

7/24/2019 epistemologie de la finance

1/42

STATE: A MULTI-PARADIGMATIC APPROACH

Kavous Ardalan, Ph.D.Professor of Finance

School of ManagementMarist College

Poughkeepsie, Ne !ork "#$%"&"'()Fa*+ (-/ )&'$-%

0el+ (-/ )&'%%% 1*t.#2(21&Mail+ Kavous.Ardalan3Marist.1du

4anuar5 #%"'


2/42


AbstractAn5 e*planation of the state is 6ased on a orldvie. 0he premise of this paper is that an5

orldvie can 6e associated ith one of the four 6road paradigms+ functionalist, interpretive,radical humanist, and radical structuralist. 0his paper takes the case of the state and discusses itfrom the four different viepoints. 7t emphasi8es that the four vies e*pressed are e9uall5scientific and informative: the5 look at the phenomenon from their certain paradigmatic viepoint:and together the5 provide a more 6alanced understanding of the phenomenon underconsideration.

#


3/42


I. Introduction

An5 ade9uate anal5sis of the state necessaril5 re9uires fundamental understanding of the

orldvies underl5ing the vies e*pressed ith respect to the state. 0his paper is 6ased on the

premise that an5 orldvie can 6e associated ith one of the four 6asic paradigms+ functionalist,

interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist. 7t argues that an5 vie e*pressed ith

respect to the state is 6ased on one of the four paradigms or orldvies. 0his paper takes the

case of the state and discusses it from four different viepoints, each of hich corresponds to one

of the four 6road orldvies. 0he paper emphasi8es that the four vies e*pressed are e9uall5

scientific and informative: the5 look at the phenomenon from their certain paradigmatic viepoint:

and together the5 provide a more 6alanced understanding of the phenomenon under

consideration.

0hese different perspectives should 6e regarded as polar ideal t5pes. 0he ork of certain

authors helps to define the logicall5 coherent form of a certain polar ideal t5pe. ;ut, the ork of

man5 authors ho share more than one perspective is located 6eteen the poles of the spectrum

defined 65 the polar ideal t5pes. 0he purpose of this paper is not to put people into 6o*es. 7t is

rather to recommend that a satisfactor5 perspective ma5 dra upon several of the ideal t5pes.

0he ancient para6le of si* 6lind scholars and their e*perience ith the elephant illustrates

the 6enefits of paradigm diversit5. 0here ere si* 6lind scholars ho did not kno hat the

elephant looked like and had never even heard its name. 0he5 decided to o6tain a mental picture,

i.e. knoledge, 65 touching the animal. 0he first 6lind scholar felt the elephant


4/42

elephant


5/42

0he functionalist paradigm has provided the frameork for current mainstream academic

fields, and accounts for the largest proportion of theor5 and research in academia.

7n order to understand a ne paradigm, theorists should 6e full5 aare of assumptions

upon hich their on paradigm is 6ased. Moreover, to understand a ne paradigm one has to

e*plore it from ithin, since the concepts in one paradigm cannot easil5 6e interpreted in terms of

those of another. No attempt should 6e made to critici8e or evaluate a paradigm from the outside.

0his is self&defeating since it is 6ased on a separate paradigm. All four paradigms can 6e easil5

critici8ed and ruined in this a5.

0hese four paradigms are of paramount importance to an5 scientist, 6ecause the process

of learning a6out a favored paradigm is also the process of learning hat that paradigm is not.

0he knoledge of paradigms makes scientists aare of the 6oundaries ithin hich the5

approach their su6=ect. 1ach of the four paradigms implies a different a5 of social theori8ing.

;efore discussing each paradigm, it is useful to look at the notion of >paradigm.? ;urrell

and Morgan "2)2/#regard the+

... four paradigms as 6eing defined 65 ver5 6asic meta&theoretical assumptions hich underrite the frame

of reference, mode of theori8ing and modus operandi of the social theorists ho operate ithin them. 7t is a

term hich is intended to emphasi8e the commonalit5 of perspective hich 6inds the ork of a group of

theorists together in such a a5 that the5 can 6e usefull5 regarded as approaching social theor5 ithin the

6ounds of the same pro6lematic.

0he paradigm does ... have an underl5ing unit5 in terms of its 6asic and often >taken for granted?

assumptions, hich separate a group of theorists in a ver5 fundamental a5 from theorists located in other

paradigms. 0he >unit5? of the paradigm thus derives from reference to alternative vies of realit5 hich lie

outside its 6oundaries and hich ma5 not necessaril5 even 6e recogni8ed as e*isting. pages #'@#-/

#0his ork 6orros heavil5 from the ideas and insights of ;urrell and Morgan "2)2/.


6/42

1ach theor5 can 6e related to one of the four 6road orldvies. 0hese adhere to different

sets of fundamental assumptions a6out: the nature of science i.e., the su6=ective&o6=ective

dimension/, and the nature of societ5 i.e., the dimension of regulation&radical change/, as in

1*hi6it ".'

Assumptions related to the nature of science are assumptions ith respect to ontolog5,

epistemolog5, human nature, and methodolog5.

0he assumptions a6out ontolog5 are assumptions regarding the ver5 essence of the

phenomenon under investigation. 0hat is, to hat e*tent the phenomenon is o6=ective and e*ternal

to the individual or it is su6=ective and the product of individual


7/42

)


8/42

0he assumptions a6out methodolog5 are related to the a5 in hich one attempts to

investigate and o6tain knoledge a6out the social orld. 0hat is, to hat e*tent the methodolog5

treats the social orld as 6eing real hard and e*ternal to the individual or it is as 6eing of a much

softer, personal and more su6=ective 9ualit5. 7n the former, the focus is on the universal

relationship among elements of the phenomenon, hereas in the latter, the focus is on the

understanding of the a5 in hich the individual creates, modifies, and interprets the situation

hich is e*perienced.

0he assumptions related to the nature of societ5 are concerned ith the e*tent of

regulation of the societ5 or radical change in the societ5.

Sociolog5 of regulation provides e*planation of societ5 6ased on the assumption of its

unit5 and cohesiveness. 7t focuses on the need to understand and e*plain h5 societ5 tends to

hold together rather than fall apart.

Sociolog5 of radical change provides e*planation of societ5 6ased on the assumption of its

deep&seated structural conflict, modes of domination, and structural contradiction. 7t focuses on

the deprivation of human 6eings, 6oth material and ps5chic, and it looks toards alternatives

rather than the acceptance ofstatus quo.

0he su6=ective&o6=ective dimension and the regulation&radical change dimension together

define four paradigms, each of hich share common fundamental assumptions a6out the nature of

social science and the nature of societ5. 1ach paradigm has a fundamentall5 uni9ue perspective for

the anal5sis of social phenomena.

0he aim of this paper is not so much to create a ne piece of pu88le as it is to fit the

e*isting pieces of pu88le together in order to make sense of it. First, each of the sections 77 to /

la5s don the foundation 65 discussing one of the four paradigms. Su6se9uentl5, each e*amines

(


9/42

glo6ali8ation and finance from the point of vie of the respective paradigm. Section 7 concludes

the paper.

II. Functionalist Paradigm

0he functionalist paradigm assumes that societ5 has a concrete e*istence and follos

certain order. 0hese assumptions lead to the e*istence of an o6=ective and value&free social science

hich can produce true e*planator5 and predictive knoledge of the realit5 >out there.? 7t

assumes scientific theories can 6e assessed o6=ectivel5 65 reference to empirical evidence.

Scientists do not see an5 roles for themselves, ithin the phenomenon hich the5 anal58e,

through the rigor and techni9ue of the scientific method. 7t attri6utes independence to the

o6server from the o6served. 0hat is, an a6ilit5 to o6serve >hat is? ithout affecting it. 7t

assumes there are universal standards of science, hich determine hat constitutes an ade9uate

e*planation of hat is o6served. 7t assumes there are e*ternal rules and regulations governing the

e*ternal orld. 0he goal of scientists is to find the orders that prevail ithin that phenomenon.

0he functionalist paradigm seeks to provide rational e*planations of social affairs and

generate regulative sociolog5. 7t assumes a continuing order, pattern, and coherence and tries to

e*plain hat is. 7t emphasi8es the importance of understanding order, e9uili6rium and sta6ilit5 in

societ5 and the a5 in hich these can 6e maintained. 7t is concerned ith the regulation and

control of social affairs. 7t 6elieves in social engineering as a 6asis for social reform.

0he rationalit5 hich underlies functionalist science is used to e*plain the rationalit5 of

societ5. Science provides the 6asis for structuring and ordering the social orld, similar to the

structure and order in the natural orld. 0he methods of natural science are used to generate

2


10/42

e*planations of the social orld. 0he use of mechanical and 6iological analogies for modeling and

understanding the social phenomena are particularl5 favored.

Functionalists are individualists. 0hat is, the properties of the aggregate are determined 65

the properties of its units.

0heir approach to social science is rooted in the tradition of positivism. 7t assumes that the

social orld is concrete, meaning it can 6e identified, studied and measured through approaches

derived from the natural sciences.

Functionalists 6elieve that the positivist methods hich have triumphed in natural sciences

should prevail in social sciences, as ell. 7n addition, the functionalist paradigm has 6ecome

dominant in academic sociolog5 and mainstream academic fields. 0he social orld is treated as a

place of concrete realit5, characteri8ed 65 uniformities and regularities hich can 6e understood

and e*plained in terms of causes and effects. Biven these assumptions, the individual is regarded

as taking on a passive role: his or her 6ehavior is 6eing determined 65 the economic environment.

Functionalists are pragmatic in orientation and are concerned to understand societ5 so that

the knoledge thus generated can 6e used in societ5. 7t is pro6lem orientated in approach as it is

concerned to provide practical solutions to practical pro6lems.

7n 1*hi6it ", the functionalist paradigm occupies the south&east 9uadrant. Schools of

thought ithin this paradigm can 6e located on the o6=ective&su6=ective continuum. From right to

left the5 are+ 6=ectivism, Social S5stem 0heor5, 7ntegrative 0heor5, 7nteractionism, and Social

Action 0heor5.

Functionalist paradigm


11/42

7ndividuals and groups struggle to gain autonom5 in the face of the control of others. 0he5

also e*pend efforts to gain control over others. Such activities are a fundamental tendenc5 of

political life. Struggles for autonom5 are the results of conflicts and cleavages. 0hese struggles are

often successful and in turn the5 result in tendencies toard pluralism. ;ecause conflicts and

cleavages are u6i9uitous the5 result in tendencies toard pluralism.

A regime that has hegemon5 can prevent the development of a pluralistic social and

political order 65 preventing the pu6lic manifestation of conflicts and cleavages that result in the

suppression of autonom5. oever, to the e*tent that the 6arriers to organi8ed oppositions are

loered, the political and social life reflects the corresponding degree of thrust toard autonom5

and pluralism. 7n pol5archies @ here these 6arriers are loest, 65 definition @ su6s5stems en=o5

comparative autonom5 and su6se9uentl5 organi8ational pluralism 6ecome distinguishing feature of

the social and political order. A high degree of pluralism is a necessar5 condition, an essential

characteristic, and a conse9uence of a democratic regime.

7t is useful to distinguish 6eteen the meanings of different terminologies hich are used

in this conte*t. 0he term >conflictive pluralism? is used to refer to the num6er and pattern of

relativel5 lasting cleavages hich must 6e considered in order to characteri8e conflicts among a

given group of persons. Conflictive pluralism should 6e distinguished from strict 6ipolarit5, hich

is a relativel5 rare cleavage pattern compared to the pu6lic, political conflicts ithin those

countries of the orld that have relativel5 lo 6arriers to the pu6lic e*pression of conflict. 0he

term >organi8ational pluralism? is used to refer to the num6er and autonom5 of organi8ations that

must 6e considered in order to characteri8e conflicts among a given group of persons. Ghen

organi8ations are greater in num6er and have greater autonom5, other things 6eing e9ual,

organi8ational pluralism is greater. S5stems that allo their important units or su6s5stems to en=o5

""


12/42

a significant degree of autonom5 are called pluralistic, or at least pluralistic in this respect.

Causes of Organizational Pluralism: 0he degree of organi8ational pluralism that e*ists

ithin the political s5stem of a countr5 can 6e mainl5 e*plained 65+ "/ the amount of latent

conflictive pluralism: #/ the nature of the socioeconomic order: '/ the nature of the political

regime: -/ the concrete structure of the political institutions. 0hese four factors are

interdependent and their relationships are comple*.

Conflictive pluralism+ 7n most countries there are different lines of cleavage, and the

totalit5 of these cleavage lines has produced a pattern of conflictive pluralism, not 6ipolarit5.

;ipolarit5 along a cleavage line 6ased on social class can e*ist onl5 in highl5 homogeneous

countries @ e.g., Ne Healand or Finland @ here other differences @ such as language, religion,

race, or ethnicit5 @ are not sufficientl5 present to confound the effects of differences in social

class. Countries that are highl5 homogeneous are a6le to fairl5 easil5 deal ith conflicts arising

from class cleavages. 0herefore, in such countries, the pattern that emerges is not e*treme

polari8ation and its conse9uent acute antagonisms, 6ut a moderate 6ipolarit5 ithin a fairl5

consensual political environment.

A deeper and more e*tensive e*planation is needed to satisfactoril5 account for the

poerful thrust toard conflictive pluralism hich is currentl5 e*hi6ited in almost all countries in

the orld, and certainl5 in countries in the later stages of economic development. Such an

e*planation ould 6e founded on the idea that the creation of strong identifications and

attachments e*tends much outside the narro 6ase of concrete human e*periences in small,

specific, and idios5ncratic cluster of human 6eings ith hom ever5one is most intimatel5

associated during the important occasions of their lives.

0he amount of latent conflict aaiting e*pression after the 6arriers to oppositions are

"#


13/42

loered is not the same in ever5 countr5. 0he evidence from studies of specific countries and from

cross&countr5 data shos that there e*ist significant variations in the amount of conflictive

pluralism among countries ith similar regimes, particularl5 among pol5archies, and ithin the

same countr5 over long periods of time.

0he socio&economic order+ 7t is reasona6le to ask the folloing 9uestion. Gould a high

degree of organi8ational pluralism vanish in an economic order here the principal means of

production ere sociall5, rather than privatel5, oned @ i.e., in a socialist economic orderI A

idel5&held vie ansers such 9uestions affirmativel5. oever, such a vie is unam6iguousl5

false. 0his is 6ecause it rests upon a theoretical confusion that regards onership e9uivalent to

control. ;oth the advocates of capitalism and their socialist critics share such a vie.

0his vie, hich makes an egregious error, is 6ased on simple&minded concepts, and

arrives at tragic results. 0his is 6ecause the evidence has conclusivel5 demonstrated that

onership is not a sufficient condition for control. 0his perspective implies that capitalism in 6oth

theor5 and practice inaugurated a s5stem of decentrali8ed control over economic organi8ations

that ere highl5 autonomous from the central government and one another. Socialism entails

social onership of economic enterprises. Jnless socialism must 6e centrali8ed, then a socialist

econom5 can 6e highl5 decentrali8ed and therefore 6e pluralistic. 0hat is, a socialist government

might grant a high degree of autonom5 to enterprises in order to achieve internal controls far

more democratic than have ever e*isted either under capitalism or in centrali8ed socialist s5stems,

such as the Soviet Jnion. No socialist government @ and no government, in general @ ould

eliminate all e*ternal controls, hether 65 markets, the government of the state, or 6oth.

0herefore, a decentrali8ed socialist order might generate as much, and even more, organi8ational

pluralism as has e*isted in an5 non&socialist order. 0he crucial alternatives, for 6oth the political

"'


14/42

and the economic order, are related to control, not onership.

egime+ A highl5 hegemonic regime can prevent the manifestation of cleavages in the

political life of a countr5 in hich there is a remarka6le degree of diversit5 among its people ith

respect to various characteristics+ language, religion, ideolog5, region, ethnic group, national

identification, race, etc. Such a regime can consist of a small set of unified rulers, and can mo6ili8e

all political resources for its on use. 7t can maintain a strict hierarchical 6ureaucrac5, and it can

den5 its citi8ens access to an5 political resources. Jnder a highl5 hegemonic regime, no pu6lic

conflict ould 6e o6served, and the underl5ing tendenc5 toards conflictive pluralism ould

remain latent.

7f the 6arriers to oppositions are graduall5 reduced, then autonomous organi8ations ould

6e formed, some of hich ould seek to advance the claims of the politicall5 latent groups and

su6cultures. 0he more the 6arriers to the formation of organi8ation and participation are reduced,

the greater ould 6e the num6er of autonomous organi8ation. ver time, a limit ould 6e

reached, and a more sta6le pattern ould emerge.

0he nature of the regime is closel5 related to the e*tent of organi8ational pluralism.

7ndeed, in the modern orld, one of the most characteristic differences among regimes is the

e*tent to hich the oppositions are permitted to organi8e, e*press themselves, and participate in

political life against the conduct of the government of the state. 7t is in this relation that the term

>pol5arch5? is used to refer to a regime in hich the right to participate in political life is 6roadl5

e*tended, and the institutional guarantees to oppositions are strong, and the 6arriers to

oppositions are lo. And the term >hegemonic? is used to refer to a regime in hich the

institutional guarantees are eak or a6sent, and the 6arriers to oppositions are high.

rgani8ational pluralism acts as 6oth cause and effect of the li6erali8ation and democrati8ation of

"-


15/42

hegemonic regimes.

7n particular, pol5arch5 is characteri8ed 65 high level of institutional guarantees and 6road

inclusiveness hich are associated ith organi8ational pluralism. 0he important conditions for the

groth of organi8ations, particularl5 political organi8ations, are+ the guarantees of the right to

form and =oin organi8ations: freedom of e*pression: the right to vote: the right of political leaders

to compete pu6licl5 for support, especiall5 in elections: and the e*istence of alternative sources of

information. 0hese conditions not onl5 increase the incentives for forming political organi8ations,

6ut also reduce the costs of doing so. 7f a countr5 has a regime that is pol5archal then it ill

e*hi6it more conflictive and organi8ational pluralism than if its regime is hegemonic.

Concrete political institutions+ Although the concrete political institutions of a countr5 are

partl5 determined 65 the nature of the regime and the e*tent of conflictive pluralism, the5 can

independentl5 affect the num6er and autonom5 of organi8ations in the countr5. 0hese effects are

most pronounced in pol5archies, among hich there are vast variations in their political

institutions. 0hree most significant variations are as follos. First, multipart5 s5stems increase the

num6er and the autonom5 of political parties. Second, in some pol5archies, such as Sit8erland

and the Jnited States, constitutional norms and political practices e*tensivel5 partition

governmental authorit5 through 6oth federalism and separation of poers. 0hese lead to an

increase in the num6er and autonom5 of political organi8ations. 7n some other pol5archies, such as

Ne Healand and ;ritain, there is a unitar5 governance s5stem, and the parliamentar5

government. 0hese lead to a considera6l5 greater concentration of governmental authorit5 and

correspondingl5 less organi8ational pluralism among political organi8ations. Finall5, the num6er

and the autonom5 of organi8ations can increase 65 institutions such as >consociational

democrac5,? as practiced in the Netherlands, and >corporate pluralism? or >democratic

"


16/42

corporatism,? as practiced in Nora5 and Seden. ;ecause each of these three sources of

variation can idel5 var5 independentl5 of the others, and 6ecause the concrete institutions of a

particular countr5 also change due to other sources of variation @ even among countries ith

similar regimes, such as pol5archies @ differences in concrete political institutions result in vast

variations in the specific form of organi8ational pluralism that take shape in different countries.

III. Interpretive Paradigm

0he interpretive paradigm assumes that social realit5 is the result of the su6=ective

interpretations of individuals. 7t sees the social orld as a process hich is created 65 individuals.

Social realit5, insofar as it e*ists outside the consciousness of an5 individual, is regarded as 6eing

a netork of assumptions and intersu6=ectivel5 shared meanings. 0his assumption leads to the

6elief that there are shared multiple realities hich are sustained and changed. esearchers

recogni8e their role ithin the phenomenon under investigation. 0heir frame of reference is one of

participant, as opposed to o6server. 0he goal of the interpretive researchers is to find the orders

that prevail ithin the phenomenon under consideration: hoever, the5 are not o6=ective.

0he interpretive paradigm is concerned ith understanding the orld as it is, at the level

of su6=ective e*perience. 7t seeks e*planations ithin the realm of individual consciousness and

su6=ectivit5. 7ts anal5sis of the social orld produces sociolog5 of regulation. 7ts vies are

underritten 65 the assumptions that the social orld is cohesive, ordered, and integrated.

7nterpretive sociologists seek to understand the source of social realit5. 0he5 often delve

into the depth of human consciousness and su6=ectivit5 in their 9uest for the meanings in social

life. 0he5 re=ect the use of mathematics and 6iological analogies in learning a6out the societ5 and

"$


17/42

their approach places emphasis on understanding the social orld from the vantage point of the

individuals ho are actuall5 engaged in social activities.

0he interpretive paradigm vies the functionalist position as unsatisfactor5 for to

reasons. First, human values affect the process of scientific en9uir5. 0hat is, scientific method is

not value&free, since the frame of reference of the scientific o6server determines the a5 in hich

scientific knoledge is o6tained. Second, in cultural sciences the su6=ect matter is spiritual in

nature. 0hat is, human 6eings cannot 6e studied 65 the methods of the natural sciences, hich aim

to esta6lish general las. 7n the cultural sphere human 6eings are perceived as free. An

understanding of their lives and actions can 6e o6tained 65 the intuition of the total holes, hich

is 6ound to 6reak don 65 atomistic anal5sis of functionalist paradigm.

Cultural phenomena are seen as the e*ternal manifestations of inner e*perience. 0he

cultural sciences, therefore, need to appl5 anal5tical methods 6ased on >understanding:? through

hich the scientist can seek to understand human 6eings, their minds, and their feelings, and the

a5 these are e*pressed in their outard actions. 0he notion of >understanding? is a defining

characteristic of all theories located ithin this paradigm.

0he interpretive paradigm 6elieves that science is 6ased on >taken for granted?

assumptions: and, like an5 other social practice, must 6e understood ithin a specific conte*t.

0herefore, it cannot generate o6=ective and value&free knoledge. Scientific knoledge is sociall5

constructed and sociall5 sustained: its significance and meaning can onl5 6e understood ithin its

immediate social conte*t.

0he interpretive paradigm regards mainstream academic theorists as 6elonging to a small

and self&sustaining communit5, hich 6elieves that social realit5 e*ists in a concrete orld. 0he5

")


18/42

theori8e a6out concepts hich have little significance to people outside the communit5, hich

practices social theor5, and the limited communit5 hich social theorists ma5 attempt to serve.

Mainstream academic theorists tend to treat their su6=ect of stud5 as a hard, concrete and

tangi6le empirical phenomenon hich e*ists >out there? in the >real orld.? 7nterpretive

researchers are opposed to such structural a6solution. 0he5 emphasi8e that the social orld is no

more than the su6=ective construction of individual human 6eings ho create and sustain a social

orld of intersu6=ectivel5 shared meaning, hich is in a continuous process of reaffirmation or

change. 0herefore, there are no universall5 valid rules of science. 7nterpretive research ena6les

scientists to e*amine human 6ehavior together ith ethical, cultural, political, and social issues.

7n 1*hi6it ", the interpretive paradigm occupies the south&est 9uadrant. Schools of

thought ithin this paradigm can 6e located on the o6=ective&su6=ective continuum. From left to

right the5 are+ Solipsism, Phenomenolog5, Phenomenological Sociolog5, and ermeneutics.

7nterpretive paradigm6ringing the state 6ack in? is related to the arguments a6out the autonom5

and the capacities of states as actors tr5ing to reali8e polic5 goals. 0he >state autonom5?

conceives the state as an organi8ation that claims control over territories and people: and

formulates goals and pursues them even though the5 do not reflect the demands or interests of

social groups, classes, or societ5. Such independent formulation of goals makes the state an

important actor. 0he >state capacities? refers to the a6ilit5 of the state to implement official goals,

especiall5 in the face of the opposition of poerful social groups, or in the face of adverse socio&

economic circumstances.

States follo different reasons and methods in formulating and pursuing their on goals.

For this literature see Beert8 "2("/, art8 "2/, Kat8enstein "2))/, Krasner "2(-/, Poggi "2)(/, Skocpol"2)2/, Stepan "2)(/, 0ill5 "2)/, and Geiss "22(/. 0his section is 6ased on Skocpol "2(/.

"(


19/42

0he position of states ithin transnational structures and international flos of communication

can lead state officials to follo transformative strategies even hen eight5 social forces are

indifferent or resistant to such strategies. Similarl5, the need of states to maintain control and

order can prompt states to initiate reforms and even simple repression. Among state officials,

those are more likel5 to act that have formed organi8ationall5 coherent collectivities @ especiall5

collectivities of career officials ho are relativel5 free from ties to dominant socio&economic

interests @ and can formulate and pursue ne state strategies in times of crisis. Similarl5,

collectivities of state officials can interpret esta6lished pu6lic policies in specific a5s and act

relativel5 continuousl5 over long periods of time.

0he folloing factors can e*plain the states< autonomous actions+ the international role of

states, the challenging role of states in maintaining domestic order, and the organi8ational

resources at the disposal of the collectivities of state officials. 0he com6ination of these factors

can e*plain e*treme instances of autonomous state actions+ in some historical circumstances,

strategic elites use militar5 force to take over the national state, and then appl5 6ureaucratic levers

to enforce reformist or revolutionar5 changes from a6ove.

State elites in Eatin America installed >e*clusionar5? or >inclusionar5? corporatist regimes.

A crucial factor in the e*planation of such actions is the formation of a strategicall5&located cadre

of officials ho ere privileged ith the folloing to 9ualities+ "/ great organi8ational strength

inside and through prevailing state organi8ations: and #/ a unified ideolog5 a6out the desira6ilit5

and possi6ilit5 of using state intervention to ensure political order and national economic

development. 0he main factor 6ehind ;ra8ile*clusionar5? corporatist coup in "2$- and Peruinclusionar5? corporatist coup in "2$( as the prior sociali8ation of ne militar5 professionals.

0hese ere the cohort of career militar5 officers hose training schools taught them techni9ues

"2


20/42

and ideas of national economic planning and counter&insurgenc5, in addition to traditional militar5

skills. Su6se9uentl5, this cohort of militar5 professionals installed corporatist regimes in the face

of perceived crises of 6oth political order and national economic development. 0hese militar5

professionals used the state poer to counter threats to national order coming from non&dominant

classes and groups. 0he5 also used the state poer to implement socio&economic reforms and

national industriali8ation, hich the5 sa as necessar5 for improved international standing.

A set of historical cases @ 4apan


21/42

Prussia in "(%$&"("-, ussia in the "($%s, and ;ra8il after "2$-. oever, su6stantive structural

changes, including the dispossession of a dominant class, ma5 6e undertaken 65 the staterevolution from a6ove.? 0his supports the notion of the relative autonom5 of the state,

hich can 6e used in the anal5sis of the possi6le socio&political conse9uences of various societal

and historical configurations of state and class poer.

0he foregoing cases deal in somehat similar terms ith e*traordinar5 instances of state

autonom5 @ instances of non&constitutionall5&ruling officials using the state to direct politics and

restructure societ5. Some other cases deal ith instances of state autonom5 hen making pu6lic

polic5 in li6eral democratic and constitutional polities, such as ;ritain, Seden, and the Jnited

States. 0he anal5ses of these cases points to the same 6asic anal5tical factors @ the stateshegemon5? in civil societ5 is at the core of the

functioning of the capitalist s5stem. ;ourgeois >hegemon5? refers to the ideological predominance

of 6ourgeois values and norms over the su6ordinate classes. More specificall5, 6ourgeois

>hegemon5? is the 6ourgeois order, and has the 6ourgeois a5 of life and thought dominant in its

core. ;ourgeois >hegemon5? diffuses one concept of realit5 throughout societ5, in all its

institutional and private manifestations: and 6ourgeois spirit informs all taste, moralit5, customs,

religious and political principles, and social relations, particularl5 in their intellectual and moral

connotations.

7n the science of politics, the concept of 6ourgeois hegemon5 should 6e elevated to a

predominant place hen anal58ing the civil societ5. 0his places much emphasis on the role of the

superstructure in perpetuating classes and preventing the development of orking class

consciousness. 0he state undertakes part of the function of promoting a single 6ourgeois/

concept of realit5, and, therefore, the state pla5s an e*tensive role in perpetuating the e*isting

class&divided societ5. 0he mass of orkers, in developing their class consciousness, face three

o6stacles+ "/ the lack of understanding of their position in the economic process prevents

orkers from comprehending their class role: #/ the >private? institutions of societ5, such as

religion, prevents the orking class from self&reali8ation: and '/ the state


27/42

0he concept of >civil societ5? 6elongs to the superstructure. 0he superstructure can 6e

regarded as having to >levels.? ne of them can 6e called >civil societ5,? hich is, the ensem6le

of organisms commonl5 referred to as >private.? 0he other one can 6e called >political societ5? or

>the state.? 0hese to levels are involved in+ "/ the function of >hegemon5? that is e*ercised 65

the dominant group throughout societ5: and #/ the function of >direct domination? or command

that is e*ercised through the state and =uridical government.

0he concept of >civil societ5? is the ke5 in understanding capitalist development. 0he

superstructure, includes civil societ5, and represents the active and positive factor in historical

development. 7t is the totalit5 of ideological and cultural relations, the spiritual and intellectual

life, and the political e*pression of those relations. 0he superstructure is the focus of anal5sis, not

the structure.

0he crucial concept of hegemon5 derives its importance from the historical e*perience of

7tal5 in the "2#%s. 7n 0urin, the orking class had a significant degree of class consciousness and

revolutionar5 activit5, 6ut the 0urin movement of "2"2&"2#% had relativel5 little support in the

rest of 7tal5. 7t as the 6ourgeois reaction, i.e., Mussolini


28/42

0he concept of hegemon5 uncovers the nature of 6ourgeois rule @ and indeed of an5

previous social order. 7t emphasi8es that the dominant social s5stemconception of the orld? hich 6elongs to the

rulers. 0he philosoph5 of the ruling class is simplified and emerges as >common sense.? 0his is the

philosoph5 of the masses, ho accept the moralit5, the customs, and the institutionali8ed 6ehavior

of the societ5 the5 live in. 0hen, the pro6lem for the orking class parties is to find out ho the

ruling class has proceeded to o6tain the consent of the su6ordinate classes: and then, to find a5s

in hich the orking class should proceed to overthro the old social order and replace it ith a

ne one, hich 6rings universal freedom.

0o relationships should 6e emphasi8ed+ "/ the primac5 of the ideological

superstructures over the economic structure: and #/ the primac5 of civil societ5 consensus/ over

political societ5 force/. 0he superstructure @ rather than economic structure @ represents the

active and positive factor in historical development. 0he orking class parties should focus on

ideological and cultural relations, spiritual and intellectual life, and the political e*pression of

those relations.

0he su6ordinate classes< consent to the capitalist production cannot 6e e*plained 65 either

the force of the state, or the logic of capitalist production. 7nstead, this consent can 6e e*plained

65 the poer of consciousness and ideolog5. 7t is important to note that, in the ver5 consciousness

that consents to the relations of capitalist societ5 there e*ist the foundations of a strateg5 for

gaining the active consent of the masses through their self&organi8ation through the civil societ5

and all the hegemonic apparatuses @ i.e., factor5, school, and famil5.

#(


29/42

0he concept of hegemon5 has to principal components. 0he first component consists of

a process in civil societ5 here65 a fraction of the dominant class uses its moral and intellectual

leadership to e*ercise control over other allied fractions of the dominant class. 0he leading

fraction uses its poer and a6ilit5 to articulate the interest of the allied fractions. 0he dominant

fraction does not impose its ideolog5 upon the allied fractions. 7nstead, it uses a pedagogic and

politicall5 transformative process here65 the dominant fraction articulates a set of principles

6ased on common elements of the orldvies and interests of allied fractions. egemon5 is not a

cohesive force and is rife ith contradictions and su6=ect to struggle.

0he second component consists of the relationship 6eteen the dominant and dominated

classes. egemon5 is o6tained hen the dominant class succeeds in using its political, moral, and

intellectual leadership to esta6lish its vie of the orld as all&inclusive and universal, hich also

shapes the interests and needs of su6ordinate groups. 0his consent relationship is not static. 7t

moves on a constantl5&shifting terrain in order to cope ith the changing nature of historical

circumstances: and the demands and refle*ive actions of human 6eings.

egemon5 in societ5 can 6e regarded as the comple* of institutions, ideologies, practices,

and agents @ e.g. intellectuals @ that comprise the dominant culture of values. 0his >apparatus? of

hegemon5 6ecomes unified onl5 in relation to a class. egemon5 unifies itself as an apparatus and

6ecomes constituted 65 the class that mediates multiple su6s5stems+ the school apparatus @loer

and higher education @ the cultural apparatus @ the museums and the li6raries @ the organi8ation

of information, the frameork of life, ur6anism, and the remnants of the previous mode of

production @ i.e., the church and its intellectuals. 0he apparatus of hegemon5 is directl5 related to

the class struggle. 0he institutions that form the hegemonic apparatus have meaning onl5 in the

conte*t of the class struggle 6ecause the dominant class e*pands its poer and control in the civil

#2


30/42

societ5 through these same institutions. 0he institutions are not for >purel5? administrative and

technological purposes, 6ut the5 are infused ith political content, like the production s5stem.

Political content is incorporated 65 the dominant classes in order to e*pand their capacit5 to

reproduce their control over the direction of societal development. 7t is in the superstructure that

the e*tent and nature of this capacit5 take shape.

0he state as superstructure pla5s a primar5 role in understanding capitalist societ5. 0he

apparatus of hegemon5 is incorporated 6oth in the state and civil societ5. 0herefore, the state is

simultaneousl5 a primar5 instrument for the e*pansion of dominant&class poer, and a coercive

force @ political societ5 @ that makes su6ordinate groups eak and disorgani8ed. 0he general

notion of state corresponds to hegemon5 protected 65 coercion.

0he dominant class e*ercises hegemon5 through societ5: furthermore, the dominant class

e*ercises direct domination through the state and its =uridical government. 0he dominant class

gains consent to its rule through hegemon5 in the entire societ5: and e*ercises domination through

the use of the state


31/42

on developing counter&hegemon5 in 6oth the civil societ5 and the state. 7n the creation and

development of counter&hegemon5, the hegemonic state apparatuses are confronted, or forced

into crisis. Similarl5, electoral victories 65 the Eeft generate 6oth counter&hegemon5 in 6oth the

state apparatuses and the civil societ5.

V. Radical tructuralist Paradigm

0he radical structuralist paradigm assumes that realit5 is o6=ective and concrete, as it is

rooted in the materialist vie of natural and social orld. 0he social orld, similar to the natural

orld, has an independent e*istence, that is, it e*ists outside the minds of human 6eings.

Sociologists aim at discovering and understanding the patterns and regularities hich characteri8e

the social orld. Scientists do not see an5 roles for themselves in the phenomenon under

investigation. 0he5 use scientific methods to find the order that prevails in the phenomenon. 0his

paradigm vies societ5 as a potentiall5 dominating force. Sociologists orking ithin this

paradigm have an o6=ectivist standpoint and are committed to radical change, emancipation, and

potentialit5. 7n their anal5sis the5 emphasi8e structural conflict, modes of domination,

contradiction, and deprivation. 0he5 anal58e the 6asic interrelationships ithin the total social

formation and emphasi8e the fact that radical change is inherent in the structure of societ5 and the

radical change takes place through political and economic crises. 0his radical change necessaril5

disrupts thestatus quoand replaces it 65 a radicall5 different social formation. 7t is through this

radical change that the emancipation of human 6eings from the social structure is materiali8ed.

For radical structuralists, an understanding of classes in societ5 is essential for

understanding the nature of knoledge. 0he5 argue that all knoledge is class specific. 0hat is, it

is determined 65 the place one occupies in the productive process. Knoledge is more than a

'"


32/42

reflection of the material orld in thought. 7t is determined 65 onecorrect? knoledge from a class standpoint. 0he5 argue that the

dominated class is uni9uel5 positioned to o6tain an o6=ectivel5 >correct? knoledge of social

realit5 and its contradictions. 7t is the class ith the most direct and idest access to the process

of material transformation that ultimatel5 produces and reproduces that realit5.

adical structuralists< anal5sis indicates that the social scientist, as a producer of class&

6ased knoledge, is a part of the class struggle.

adical structuralists 6elieve truth is the hole, and emphasi8e the need to understand the

social order as a totalit5 rather than as a collection of small truths a6out various parts and aspects

of societ5. 0he financial empiricists are seen as rel5ing almost e*clusivel5 upon a num6er of

seemingl5 disparate, data&packed, pro6lem&centered studies. Such studies, therefore, are irrelevant

e*ercises in mathematical methods.

0his paradigm is 6ased on four central notions. First, there is the notion of totalit5. All

theories address the total social formation. 0his notion emphasi8es that the parts reflect the

totalit5, not the totalit5 the parts.

Second, there is the notion of structure. 0he focus is upon the configurations of social

relationships, called structures, hich are treated as persistent and enduring concrete facilities.

'#


33/42

0he third notion is that of contradiction. Structures, or social formations, contain

contradictor5 and antagonistic relationships ithin them hich act as seeds of their on deca5.

0he fourth notion is that of crisis. Contradictions ithin a given totalit5 reach a point at

hich the5 can no longer 6e contained. 0he resulting political, economic crises indicate the point

of transformation from one totalit5 to another, in hich one set of structures is replaced 65

another of a fundamentall5 different kind.

7n 1*hi6it ", the radical structuralist paradigm occupies the north&east 9uadrant. Schools

of thought ithin this paradigm can 6e located on the o6=ective&su6=ective continuum. From right

to left the5 are+ ussian Social 0heor5, Conflict 0heor5, and Contemporar5 Mediterranean

Mar*ism.

adical structuralist paradigmorder.? 0his poer, hich seemingl5 stands a6ove societ5, arose out

) For this literature see Aronoit8 and ;ratsis #%%#/, Bold, Eo, and Gright "2)/, irsch "2)(/, olloa5 andPicciotto "2)(/, 4essop "2(#, "22%/, Mili6and "2$, "2$2/, and Poulant8as "2)#/. 0his section is 6ased onEenin "2")/.

''


34/42

of societ5, 6ut placed itself a6ove societ5, and increasingl5 alienated itself from societ5, is the

state.

0he state has a historical role and has a meaning. 0he state is 6oth a product and a

manifestation of the irreconcila6ilit5 of class antagonisms. 0he state arises 6ecause class

antagonism cannot 6e o6=ectivel5 reconciled. And, conversel5, the e*istence of the state illustrates

the e*istence of class antagonisms that are irreconcila6le.

0he 6ourgeois and particularl5 the pett5&6ourgeois ideologists are compelled 65

indisputa6le historical facts to accept that the state onl5 e*ists here class antagonisms and class

struggle e*ist. oever, the5 mistakenl5 6elieve that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of

classes. 0he5 do not recogni8e that the state could neither have arisen nor have maintained itself if

it ere possi6le to reconcile classes. 0he state does not reconcile classes. 7ndeed, the state is an

organ of class rule, and it is an organ for the oppression of one class 65 another. 0he state creates

and maintains >order,? hich legali8es and perpetuates this oppression 65 moderating class

conflicts. oever, the pett5&6ourgeois politicians mistakenl5 6elieve that >order? means the

reconciliation of classes and not the oppression of one class 65 another. 0he5 mistakenl5 6elieve

that alleviating the class conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes

of their means and methods of struggle for overthroing the oppressors. 0he5 mistakenl5 6elieve

that the state >reconciles? classes, rather than 6elieving that the state is an organ of the rule of a

specific class hich cannot 6e reconciled ith the class opposite to it.

Since the state is an organ of class rule, since class antagonisms are irreconcila6le, since

the state is the product of the irreconcila6ilit5 of class antagonisms, and since the state is a poer

standing a6ove societ5 and increasingl5 alienating itself from it, then it clearl5 follos that the

'-


35/42

li6eration of the oppressed class re9uires not onl5 a violent revolution, 6ut also the destruction of

the apparatus of state poer hich has 6een created and maintained 65 the ruling class.

7n contrast to the old gentile tri6al or clan/ order, the state territoriall5 divides its

su6=ects. 0his seemingl5 >natural? division emerged through a prolonged struggle against the old

generational organi8ation of tri6es. Furthermore, the state esta6lishes a pu6lic poer that no

longer directl5 coincides ith the population that used to organi8e itself as an armed force. 0his

pu6lic poer 6ecame necessar5 6ecause after the division of societ5 into classes the self&acting

armed&organi8ation of the population 6ecame impossi6le. 0his pu6lic poer, hich e*ists in ever5

state, consists not onl5 of armed men, 6ut also of material ad=uncts, prisons, and various

institutions of coercion, hich ere not even knon in an5 gentile clan/ societ5.

0his >poer,? hich is called the state, arises from societ5, 6ut places itself a6ove societ5,

and increasingl5 alienates itself from societ5. 0his poer has at its command special 6odies of

armed men having prisons, etc. 1mphasis should 6e placed on >special 6odies of armed men?

6ecause the pu6lic poer hich is a characteristic of ever5 state >does not directl5 coincide? ith

the armed population, i.e., ith its >self&acting armed organi8ation.? 0he arm5 and the police are

the ma=or instruments of state poer. From the viepoint of the 6ourgeois and pett5&6ourgeois

ideologists, ho have not e*perienced a revolution, the state cannot 6e otherise. 0he5 cannot

envision hat is a >self&acting armed organi8ation of the population.? 0he5 mistakenl5 6elieve that

the reason it 6ecame necessar5 to place special 6odies of armed men @ i.e., standing arm5 and

police @ a6ove societ5, and alienate themselves from societ5, is that social life gre more comple*

that led to the division of la6or. 0his seemingl5 >scientific? reasoning o6scures the important and

6asic fact that societ5 has 6een split into irreconcila6le antagonistic classes.

'


36/42

7f societ5 ere not split into irreconcila6le antagonistic classes, it ould 6e possi6le for

societ5 to have the >self&acting armed organi8ation of the population,? hich ould 6e different

from the primitive organi8ation of a stick&ielding herd of monke5s, or of primitive men, or of

men united in clans, due to its comple*it5, its high technical level, and so on. Since societ5 has

6een split into irreconcila6le antagonistic classes, its >self&acting? arming ould result in an armed

struggle 6eteen them. 7n a class&divided societ5, the need for a state arises, and a special poer

is created, hich has special 6odies of armed men. 7n ever5 great revolution, the state apparatus is

destro5ed. 1ver5 great revolution is 6ased on class struggle. 1ver5 great revolution clearl5 shos,

on the one hand, ho the ruling class strives to maintain its on special 6odies of armed men: and

on the other hand, ho the oppressed class strives to create a ne organi8ation of armed men in

order to serve the e*ploited instead of the e*ploiters. 1ver5 great revolution shos the tension

6eteen >special? 6odies of armed men and the >self&acting armed organi8ation of the

population.?

0he state is an instrument used 65 the ruling class for the e*ploitation of the oppressed

class. 0he special pu6lic poer that stands a6ove societ5 re9uires ta*es and state loans for its on

maintenance. 0he state officials, ho have pu6ic poer and the right to lev5 ta*es, as organs of

societ5, stand a6ove societ5. 0he state officials are not satisfied ith the free, voluntar5 respect

that as given to the organs of the gentile clan/ constitution, even if the5 could gain it. Special

las are enacted that declare the sanctit5 and immunit5 of the officials. 0he police officer at the

loest rank has more authorit5 than the representative of the clan. oever, even the highest

militar5 officer ould env5 the elder of a clan ho as accorded the unrestrained respect of the

communit5.

'$


37/42

As organs of state poer, the officials en=o5 a privileged position and place themselves

a6ove societ5. 0his is the case 6ecause the state emerged 6ased on the need to control class

antagonisms. More importantl5, the state emerged at the time of the conflict of these antagonistic

classes. As a result, the state is the state of the most poerful and economicall5 dominant class.

0he economicall5 dominant class through the use of the instrument of the state 6ecomes also the

politicall5 dominant class that holds don and e*ploits the oppressed class. 0he ancient and feudal

states ere organs used 65 the corresponding ruling class for the e*ploitation of the slaves and

serfs. Similarl5, the modern representative state is used as an instrument 65 capital for the

e*ploitation of age&la6or. ;5 a5 of e*ception, there are short periods in hich the arring

classes 6alance each otherdeveloped? these

methods of supporting and maintaining the poer of ealth in democratic repu6lics of all kinds.

0he poer of >ealth? is more guaranteed in a democratic repu6lic 6ecause it does not

depend on an5 flas either in the political machiner5 or in the political shell of capitalism. A

democratic repu6lic is the 6est possi6le fit as the political shell of capitalism. After capital gained

possession of this 6est political shell through the corruption of the officials and the alliance of the

government and the Stock 1*change/, it esta6lished its poer so securel5 and so firml5 such that

no change of persons, institutions, or parties in the 6ourgeois&democratic repu6lic could change it.

')


38/42

Jniversal suffrage is an instrument of 6ourgeois rule. Jniversal suffrage is used to gauge the

maturit5 of the orking class. 0his is the role of universal suffrage in the 6ourgeois&democratic

repu6lic. ;ut, the pett5&6ourgeois democrats e*pect more from universal suffrage. 0he5

mistakenl5 6elieve in, and spread their mistaken 6elieves among the people, the notion that

universal suffrage in the 6ourgeois&democratic repu6lic is genuinel5 capa6le of revealing and

reali8ing hat the ma=orit5 of the orking people ants.

0he state ill >ither aa5.? 0he state ill not e*ist for ever. 0here have 6een societies

that did not have the state, and that did not have an5 idea a6out the state and the state poer. At a

certain stage of economic development, societ5 as necessaril5 split into classes, and as a result

of this split the creation of the state 6ecame a necessit5. Currentl5, societ5 is rapidl5 approaching a

stage in the development of production at hich the e*istence of class&divided societ5 not onl5

ill cease to 6e a necessit5, 6ut also ill hinder production. Ghen the proletariat sei8es the state

poer, it makes the means of production part of state propert5. Accordingl5, it a6olishes itself as

the proletariat, it a6olishes all class distinctions, it a6olishes class antagonisms, and it a6olishes the

6ourgeois state. After the proletariat sei8es the state poer, the state 6ecomes the real

representative of the hole of societ5, and at the same time the state renders itself unnecessar5.

0his is 6ecause+ "/ there is no longer an5 social class to 6e held in su6=ection, as class rule is

a6olished: and #/ there is no longer an5 need to hold in su6=ection the collisions and e*cesses that

arise from the individual struggle for e*istence amid the present market s5stem


39/42

su6stituted 65 the administration of things, including the processes of production. 0he state is not

>a6olished,? 6ut the state >ithers aa5.?

VI. Conclusion

0his paper 6riefl5 discussed four vies e*pressed ith respect to the state. 0he

functionalist paradigm 6elieves that the nature of the state is closel5 related to the e*tent of

organi8ational pluralism. 0he interpretive paradigm 6elieves that the state is an actor ho tries to

reali8e its on polic5 goals. 0he radical humanist paradigm 6elieves that the state is used 65 the

ruling class to =ustif5 and maintain its dominance. 0he radical structuralist paradigm 6elieves that

the state, in a class&divided societ5, intervenes in order to keep the societ5 in >order.?

1ach paradigm is logicall5 coherent @ in terms of its underl5ing assumptions @ and

conceptuali8es and studies the phenomenon in a certain a5, and generates distinctive kinds of

insight and understanding. 0herefore different paradigms in com6ination provide a 6roader

understanding of the phenomenon under consideration. An understanding of different paradigms

leads to a 6etter understanding of the multi&faceted nature of the phenomenon.

References

Ardalan, Kavous, #%%(, On the Role of Paradigms in Finance, Aldershot, ampshire, J.K.+Ashgate Pu6lishing Eimited, and ;urlington, ermont, J.S.A.+ Ashgate Pu6lishing Compan5.

Aronoit8, Stanle5 and ;ratsis, Peter, eds./, #%%#/, Paradigm Lost: State Theory Reconsidered,Minneapolis, Minnesota+ Jniversit5 of Minnesota Press.

;arro, Cl5de G., "22'/, Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, eo!Marxist, Post!Marxist,Madison, Gisconsin+ Jniversit5 of Gisconsin Press.

;ettner, M.S., o6inson C., and McBoun 1., "22-, >0he Case for Lualitative esearch inFinance,?"nternational Re#ie$ of Financial %nalysis, '+", pp. "@"(.

;urrell, Bi6son and Morgan, Bareth, "2)2, Sociological Paradigms and Organi&ational

'2


40/42

%nalysis, ants, 1ngland+ Boer Pu6lishing Compan5 Eimited.

Carno5, Martin, "2(-/, The State and Political Theory, Princeton, Ne 4erse5+ PrincetonJniversit5 Press.

Dahl, o6ert A., "2)(/, >Pluralism evisited,? Com'arati#e Politics, "%+#, 4anuar5, "2"%'.

Domhoff, B. Gilliam, "2)%/, The (igher Circles: The )o#erning Class in %merica, Ne !ork,Ne !ork+ andom ouse.

Duncan, B. and Eukes, S., "2$'/, >0he Ne Democrac5,? in Eukes, Steven, ed./, *ssays inSocial Theory, Eondon, 1ngland+ Macmillan, pp. -%&-).

Frankel, ;oris, "2)2/, >n the State of the State+ Mar*ist 0heories of the State after Eeninism,?Theory and Society, )+", 4anuar5&March, "22-#.

Friedman, Milton, "2$#, #%%#/, Ca'italism and Freedom, Chicago, 7llinois+ Jniversit5 ofChicago Press.

Beert8, Clifford, "2("/,egara: The Theatre State in ineteenth Century +ali, Princeton+ Ne4erse5+ Princeton Jniversit5 Press.

Bold, David A., Eo, Clarence !.., and Gright, 1rik lin, "2)/, >ecent Developments inMar*ist 0heories of the Capitalist State,? Monthly Re#ie$, #)+, cto6er, #2&-', #)+$,Novem6er, '$&".

Bramsci, Antonio, "2)"/, Selections from the Prison oteoo-s, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+

7nternational Pu6lishers.

a6ermas, 4urgen, "2)/, Legitimation Crisis, ;oston, Massachusetts+ ;eacon Press.

art8, Eouis, "2/, The Lieral Tradition in %merica, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ arcourt, ;race.

a5ek, Friedrich August, "2$%/, The Constitution of Lierty, Chicago, 7llinois+ Jniversit5 ofChicago Press.

irsch, 4oa9uim, "2)(/, >0he State Apparatus and Social eproduction+ 1lements of a 0heor5 ofthe ;ourgeois State,? in olloa5, 4. and Picciotto, Sol, eds./, State and Ca'ital: % Marxist.eate, Eondon, 1ngland+ 1dard Arnold.

o66es, 0homas, "$", "2$(/,Le#iathan, armondsorth, 1ngland+ Penguin.

olloa5, 4ohn and Picciotto, Sol, eds./, "2)(/, State and Ca'ital: % Marxist .eate, Austin,0e*as+ Jniversit5 of 0e*as Press.

-%


41/42

4essop, ;o6, "2))/, >ecent 0heories of the Capitalist State,? Camridge /ournal of *conomics,"+-, ''&')'.

4essop, ;o6, "2(#/, The Ca'italist State: Marxist Theories and Methods , Ne !ork, Ne !ork+Ne !ork Jniversit5 Press.

4essop, ;o6, "22%/, State Theory: Putting Ca'italist State in "ts Place, Jniversit5 Park,Penns5lvania+ Penns5lvania State Jniversit5 Press.

Kat8enstein, Peter, "2))/, +et$een Po$er and Plenty, Madison, Gisconsin+ Jniversit5 ofGisconsin Press.

Krasner, Stephen D., "2(-/, >evie Article+ Approaches to the State+ Alternative Conceptionsand istorical D5namics,? Com'arati#e Politics, $+"#, 4anuar5, ##'-$.

Eehm6ruch, Berhard, "2(#/, >7ntroduction+ Neocorporatism in Comparative Perspective,? in

Eehm6ruch, Berhard and Schmitter, Philippe C., eds./,Patterns in Cor'oratist Policy Ma-ing,;everl5 ills, California+ Sage.

Eind6lom, Charles, "2))/,Politics and Mar-ets, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ ;asic ;ooks.

Eenin, ladimir 7lich, "2")/, State and Re#olution, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ 7nternationalPu6lishers.

Mili6and, alph, "2$/, >Mar* and the State,? in Mili6and, alph and Saville, 4ohn, eds./, TheSocialist Register 0123, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ Monthl5 evie Press, pp. #)($.

Mili6and, alph, "2$2/, The State in Ca'italist Society, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ ;asic ;ooks,7nc., Pu6lishers.

Nordlinger, 1ric, "2("/, On the %utonomy of the .emocratic State, Cam6ridge, Massachusetts+arvard Jniversit5 Press.

ffe, Claus, "2)/, >0he 0heor5 of Capitalist State and the Pro6lem of Polic5 Formation,? inEind6erg, Eeo, Alford, o6ert, Crouch, Colin, and ffe, Claus, eds./, Stress and Contradictionin Modern Ca'italism: Pulic Policy and the Theory of the State, Ee*ington, Massachusetts+Ee*ington ;ooks. Chapter , pp. "#&"--.

ffe, Claus and onge, ., "2(-/, >0heses on the 0heor5 of the State,? in ffe, Claus,Contradictions of the 4elfare State, Cam6ridge, Massachusetts+ 0he M70 Press. Chapter -, pp.""2&"#2.

Pateman, C., "2)%/, Partici'ation and .emocratic Theory, Cam6ridge, 1ngland+ Cam6ridgeJniversit5 Press.

-"


42/42

Poggi, Biafranco, "2)(/, The .e#elo'ment of the Modern State: % Sociological "ntroduction ,Stanford, California+ Stanford Jniversit5 Press.

Poulant8as, Nicos, "2)#/, >0he Pro6lem of the Capitalist State,? in ;lack6urn, .M., ed./,"deology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory, Eondon, 1ngland+ Fontana.

Skocpol, 0heda, "2)2/, States and Social Re#olutions, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ Cam6ridgeJniversit5 Press.

Skocpol, 0heda, "2(/, >;ringing the State ;ack 7n+ Strategies of Anal5sis in Current esearch,?in 1vans, Peter ;., uescheme5er, Dietrich, and Skocpol, 0heda, eds./, +ringing the State +ac-"n, Ne !ork, Ne !ork+ Cam6ridge Jniversit5 Press. Chapter ", pp. '&').

Steger, M.;., #%%#, )loalism: The e$ Mar-et "deology, Ne !ork, N!+ oan EittlefieldPu6lishers, 7nc.

Stepan, Alfred C., "2)(/, The State and Society: Peru in Com'arati#e Pers'ecti#e, Princeton,Ne 4erse5+ Princeton Jniversit5 Press.

Streeck, Golfgang and Schmitter, Philippe C., "2(/, >Communit5, Market, State, andAssociationsI 0he Prospective Contri6ution of 7nterest Bovernance to Social rder,? in Streeck,Golfgang and Schmitter, Philippe C., eds./, Pri#ate "nterest )o#ernment: +eyond Mar-et andState, ;everl5 ills, California+ Sage.

0ill5, Charles, ed./, "2)/, The Formation of ational States in 4estern *uro'e , Princeton,Ne 4erse5+ Princeton Jniversit5 Press.

Geiss, Einda, "22(/, >0he Sources of State Capacit5,? in Geiss, Einda, The Myth of thePo$erless State: )o#erning the *conomy in a )loal *ra, Cam6ridge, 1ngland+ Polit5 Press.Chapter #, pp. "-&-%.

Golfe, Alan, "2)-/, >Ne Directions in the Mar*ist 0heor5 of Politics,? Politics and Society,-+#.

epistemologie de la finance

Documents