“the State as it emerged and was consolidated in Western Europe over several centuries was the result of complex processes. … What were the main processes that led to the constitution of the State?

• First, there was a movement towards centralisation.
• Second, it entailed a protracted dynamic of resource concentration and then an attempt at monopolisation, in the first instance of military means. … the State then succeeded in monopolising legitimate violence both internally and vis-à-vis competing external polities. The process of monopolisation also (and crucially) concerned taxation. …
• Thirdly … centralisation and monopolisation led to the establishment of a bureaucracy … This involved a dynamic of differentiation and the emergency of a clear distinction between public and private spheres. … the rise of the State marked the end of patrimonialism. …
• The last aspect in the development of the State … was institutionalisation. This took the form of the written codification of laws applicable to all citizens and entailed legal responsibilities on the part of those who held political or bureaucratical office. …
• There are of course a number of other considerations that are of importance … Of note would be the relationship between the State, the nation, other territorial entities and different types of political regimes; its role in regulating competing social forces and in imposing order; its links with the élite; and, finally, its economic function, either as actor or regulator or, possibly, as manager of the welfare system …

… the use of the notion [of the State] in settings where the four processes discussed above have not occurred, or have occurred erratically, is a form of ‘concept stretching’ that is inimical to the proper understanding of the exercise of power.”

aus: Patrick Chabal & Jean-Pascal Daloz: Culture Troubles. Politics and the Interpretation of Meaning. London: Hurst & Co., 2006, S.227-229.

09/09