8
Two divergent theories of the state by Richard Child Hill Cet essai propose un contraste et une comparaison entre perspectives marxistes et wtbkriennes sur la nature de I’etat contemporain, comme elles sont presentees dans les contributions de Jean Lojkine et de R. E. Pahl a I’occasion de ce colloque. En premier, la critique de la perspective marxiste faite par R. E. Pahl est consideree inade- quate; largement parce qu’il neglige de presenter d’une facon rigoureuse la methode d’analyse et la cornplexite des concepts fondamentaux. Ensuite, une analyse est faite de deux questions opposes entre ces conceptions divergeantes: (I) sur la conceptualisa- tion du pouvoir; (2) sur la perception des relations de classe. I1 est suggere vers la fin que I’etat-nation, en tant qu’unite d’analyse et de stratification sociale, n’est vrai- semblablement pas I’approche la plus utile pour la consideration de questions urbaines et regionales. Ce qu’il serait necessaire, plutbt, est une theorie de l’accumulation mon- diale du capital, qui est la plus visible dans les relations entre corporations multina- tionales et le r d e expansioniste de l’etat, de faqon a generer des contradictions menant a une transformation non seulement dans des formations sociales particulieres, mais aussi dans le systeme capitaliste tout entier. The creation of an international journal devoted to exploring questions of urban and regional development in a format facilitating a debate on divergent theories ofthe state is a welcome event. Yet after reading the Pahl and Lojkine contributions to this symposium, I cannot help wondering if this new oppor- tunity for critical exchange will advance us much beyond our ingrained ten- dency to talk past one another. Thus, for example, R. E. Pahl pointedly remarks that : Criticisms which do not accept the basic premises of. . . such a [marxist] paradigm are considered to be invalid. One either has to attack the position according to the rules established by that position or turn to other positions and play a different game. Pahl appears to forward this comment as a self-evident criticism of the marxian perspective. But this strikes me as too restricted a point of view. If Kuhn’s analysis of paradigms, Gouldner’s exploration of domain assumptions, and Althusser’s investigation of problematics have taught us anything, it is that proponents of alternative theories of the state are likely to be often concerned

Two divergent theories of the state

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Two divergent theories of the state

Two divergent theories of the state

by Richard Child Hill

Cet essai propose un contraste et une comparaison entre perspectives marxistes et wtbkriennes sur la nature de I’etat contemporain, comme elles sont presentees dans les contributions de Jean Lojkine et de R. E. Pahl a I’occasion de ce colloque. En premier, la critique de la perspective marxiste faite par R. E. Pahl est consideree inade- quate; largement parce qu’il neglige de presenter d’une facon rigoureuse la methode d’analyse et la cornplexite des concepts fondamentaux. Ensuite, une analyse est faite de deux questions opposes entre ces conceptions divergeantes: ( I ) sur la conceptualisa- tion du pouvoir; (2) sur la perception des relations de classe. I1 est suggere vers la fin que I’etat-nation, en tant qu’unite d’analyse et de stratification sociale, n’est vrai- semblablement pas I’approche la plus utile pour la consideration de questions urbaines et regionales. Ce qu’il serait necessaire, plutbt, est une theorie de l’accumulation mon- diale du capital, qui est la plus visible dans les relations entre corporations multina- tionales et le r d e expansioniste de l’etat, de faqon a generer des contradictions menant a une transformation non seulement dans des formations sociales particulieres, mais aussi dans le systeme capitaliste tout entier.

The creation of an international journal devoted to exploring questions of urban and regional development in a format facilitating a debate on divergent theories ofthe state is a welcome event. Yet after reading the Pahl and Lojkine contributions to this symposium, I cannot help wondering if this new oppor- tunity for critical exchange will advance us much beyond our ingrained ten- dency to talk past one another. Thus, for example, R. E. Pahl pointedly remarks that :

Criticisms which do not accept the basic premises of. . . such a [marxist] paradigm are considered to be invalid. One either has to attack the position according to the rules established by that position or turn to other positions and play a different game.

Pahl appears to forward this comment as a self-evident criticism of the marxian perspective. But this strikes me as too restricted a point of view. If Kuhn’s analysis of paradigms, Gouldner’s exploration of domain assumptions, and Althusser’s investigation of problematics have taught us anything, it is that proponents of alternative theories of the state are likely to be often concerned

Page 2: Two divergent theories of the state

38 Urbanism and the state: a debate

with different problems and divergent questions even when they seemingly employ the same concepts to depict social reality.

Clearly, any attempt at assessing the relative merits of Lojkine’s marxian as contrasted with Pahl’s essentially Weberian approach to the politiqal economy of urban and regional development requires accurate specification of divergent assumptions, problematics, hypotheses and methodological stra- tegies underpinning each perspective as well as clarification of points at which the theories overlap. In the brief space available I will attempt to elucidate a few significant issues of theory and method emerging from this clash ofdiver- gent perspectives on the state. Because my own work falls within the broad sweep of the marxian tradition, I should no doubt be considered a partisan in this debate and my comments interpreted accordingly.

I take it that central to Jean Lojkine’s overall problematic is ‘the determina- tion of the sociological function of the state, manager and agent of urban dc- velopment, site of confrontation between social forces, and, finally, site of policy formulation’. And the core hypothesis guiding Lojkine’s empirical re- search on cities in France is that ‘urban policy is an active reflection of thr relation between the different classes and class fractions . . .’ (Pickvance, 1976,

R. E. Pahl considers the marxian paradigm framing Lojkine’s research to be inadequate to the task of explaining issues of urban and regional de$lop- ment. Pahl’s critique appears to me to take the following form:

I marxian theory cannot explain important similarities among nations with different modes of production

2 marxian theory cannot explain important differences among nations with similar modes of production.

27).

These deficiencies in the marxian approach derive from :

I

2

3

the lack of explanatory power afforded by the concept of mode of produc- tion the theory’s absurdly simple ‘monocausal’ (class struggle) explanation of conflict and change the theory’s equally naive single-function (repression) explanation of the nature of capitalist states.

Ultimately, marxian theory fails to be scientific because it is nearly imposs- ible to falsify. When one attempts to apply the marxian paradigm to the com- plexity of actual social relations one is either forced to retreat to ‘a level of abstract formalism hard to relate to empirical instances’ or ‘to make exceptions of those instances which are hard to accommodate within the theory’, or adduce ‘specific historical, political or geographical factors to explain the par- ticular whilst still maintaining the general’.

If one is to assess adequately the explanatory power of a theory, one must accurately express its method of investigation and convey the full complexity of its central concepts. A careful reading ofJean Lojkine’s contribution to this

Page 3: Two divergent theories of the state

Richard Child Hill 39

sium should make it clear that R. E. Pahl’s critique of the marxian per- spective falls short in both respects. Marxian theory is a science ofthe relatiom of production under historically specific conditions. Its method of scientific investigation is one of abstracting out of the social totality the laws ofmotion ofa mode of production in their pure form. These laws then become tools for explaining concrete events in the totality through a process of successive ,pproximation (Sweezy, 1968, I 1-22). Successive approximation involves the relaxation of simplifying assumptions (e.g. ‘all else equal’) and the refinement ofconcepts through a specification of their full complexity and manifold inter- connections within the totality.

Thus, for example, one begins with the capitalist mode of production in its pure form, the laws of motion are wedded to the primary relation between capitalists and workers, and all other social relations are provisionally assumed away. Then through a process of successive approximation the model is applied to concrete social formations. Jean Lojkine’s essay makes it clear that, among other things, this process of successiu‘e approximation involves recognizing that :

I more than one mode of production simultaneously exists in any social formation (e.g. petty commodity production and capitalism)

2 a mode of production goes through historical phases of development (e.g. competitive and monopoly capitalism) and various phases coexist simulta- neously at any given moment in a social formation each phase in the development of a mode of production manifests a rela- tively distinct class structure and thus gives rise to class fractions within the dominant and subordinant class(es) (e.g. competitive and monopoly capital, competitive and monopoly labour)

4 at any given moment within a social formation there is likely to be (i) anta- gonistic relations between modes of production, (ii) antagonistic relations between classes within phases of the development of the dominant mode of production, as well as (iii) competition between class fractions within the dominant and subordinant classes the capitalist state, if it is to reproduce its relations of production-if it is to remain a capitalist state-must simultaneously manage competition between class fractions within the dominant class and class struggle between the dominant and subordinate classes in such a fashion as to ensure the overall hegemony of the dominant class.

SY ”pp

3

5

Thus adjectives like ‘simplistic’, ‘monocausal’, ‘single function’ hardly suf- fice to clarift the essential nature and complexity of a hypothesis that ‘state policy is an active reflection of the relation between different classes and class fractions’. Whether the central concepts of marxian theory can explain impor- tant differences between capitalist social formations is a matter to be settled by concrete comparative research. None the less, it should be apparent that mntian theory not only allows for, but indeed powerfully suggests, that social formations situated within a world economy and embodying different phases

Page 4: Two divergent theories of the state

40 Urbanism and tke state: a debate

ofdevelopment in the capitalist mode of production as a whole will manifest varying patterns of relations between classes and class fractions and corre- spondingly different state structures and policies.

Whether marxian theory can explain important similarities between societies with different modes of production (e.g. capitalist and ‘socialist’) is too complex an issue to be addressed here. It is worth noting, however, that socialism is a transitional phase of political and economic development rather than a permanent mode of production. Social formations progress‘ along thr path of socialist transition to the extent that they move further and further away from the domination of the capitalist mode of production and progres- sively closer to communism. The state withers away in proportion as the clays control of production disappears and both become possible only to the degrcc that a progressively larger share of the population learns to administer social production. One should speak, therefore, of a theory of socialist transition rather than a theory of socialism (Gordon, 1976). Recognizing that social formations are distinguished by the coexistence of antagonistic modes of pro. duction allows one to understand that movement along the path from onc mode to another can become blocked and reversed. All this is merely to say that a socialist transition in a social formation which is itself part of a world economy dominated by the capitalist mode of production is problematic.

Pahl concludes that marxian theory as a framework for investigating u r k n and regional issues should be jettisoned in favour of a theory which attempts to explain the nature of stratification within industrial nation-states. While I find Pahl’s critique ofthe marxian paradigm unpersuasive, this has no particu- lar bearing on the utility of his own approach to investigating urban arid regional issues. He proposes Runciman’s classification of the distribution of power in six ideal types of industrial society as an appropriate model of analy- sis. In the context of his critique of marxian theory, presumably Pahl’s own approach explains important similarities among these societies as a common response to the logic of industrialization while their relevant differences ulti- mately derive from variations in their modes of social control as wielded through the state apparatus.

Pahl appears to accept the centrality of the problem Lojkine has set out to investigate. But Pahl’s own guiding hypothesis takes a quite different form. With Britain in the background, Pahl (1976, 14) has written:

The range, form, scope and style ofstate intervention in capitalist societies requires fresh analysis . . . In general it could certainly be argued until fairly recently that thestate wassubordinating its intervention to theinterests of private capital. How- ever, there comes a point when the continuing and expanding role of the state reaches a level where its power to control investment, knowledge and the allocation of services and facilities give it an autonomy which enables i t to pass beyond its previous subservient and facilitative role. The state manages everyday life less for the support of private capital and more for the independent purposes of the state.

In sum, where state policy for Jean Lojkine is ‘an active reflection of the rela- tion between different classes and class fractions’ for R. E. Pahl class relations

Page 5: Two divergent theories of the state

Richard Child Hill 41

are increasingly structured by the autonomous purposes of the state. Thus the guiding questions for Pahl become: what are the ‘independent purposes’ of the state and ‘how has private capital lost its dominating interest?’ (1976, 14) .

For marxian social scientists the core unit of analysis is the mode of produc- tion and the determinant relation is that between classes and class fractions as embodied in the form and content of a mode of production. Given Pahl’s piding concern with the independent purposes of the state, and his thesis that the state increasingly determines class relations, it is not hard to understand why he is attracted to Runciman’s typology. For Runciman the state is the Core unit of analysis and the mode of social control exercised through the state apparatus is the primary or determinant relation in a social formation.’ Embodied in Runciman’s formulation, and carried over into Pahl’s analysis, are a number of derivative assumptions about the nature of social life that diverge sharply from the marxian paradigm. Two points of contrast appear to me to be particularly instructive: (i) how power is conceptualized; and (ij) how classes and class relations are perceived.

Within the marxian tradition, Poulantzas (1973, 284-9) has argued that the relative autonomy of the capitalist state is structurally determined by the relations between classes and class fractions. But for Poulantzas, the relative autonomy of the state is necessary to the preservation of the overall domination of the capitalist class. I t is clear that Pahl has a different view of the matter since he argues that state expansion undermines the hegemony of private capi- tal. Thus we must examine the basis upon which Pahl suggests that the state develops purposes which are independent of class relations in a capitalist social brmation. While Pahl never explicitly addresses this issue, I find two implicit answers in his recent work.

First, Pahl (1976, 19) appears to imply that a new group, with interests distinct from those of capitalist property relations, have (will?) come to power in industrial capitalist states : ‘the teleological planners and moral entre- preneurs ofthe therapeutic state’. This notion of a rise to power of a new group of state technocrats strikes me as a direct and logical extension of the mana- gerial revolution thesis. Separation of ownership and control in the firm cor- responds to the rise to power of a new managerial group. The managerial revolution reaches a new phase as control becomes separated from the corpor- ation itself. Control is now lodged in the state and this spells the rise to power ofa new group ofstate functionaries. Contained within this thesis is an organ- izational conception of pcwer. Power is lodged in an entity: the corporation, the state. The expansion of state power comes at the expense of corporate power. Thus, the key argument offered by Pahl and Winkler (1974) for the trend towards corporatism in Britain, a trend towards a political economy distinct from both capitalism and socialism, is progressive state control over the internal decision-making of the firm within the framework of private ownership of the means of production.

‘At least with respect to the nature of social stratification which Runciman (1974, 55) appears to consider to be the ‘central question of sociology’.

Page 6: Two divergent theories of the state

WIUUICLJIIL U I l U C l L C J L U L C . U U C V U L C 4x

It is not my intention to delve into the lengthy debate surrounding the mana- gerial revolution thesis. Rather, my concern here is to clarify how Pahl’s con- ception of power differs from a marxian perspective and the implications to be drawn from this divergence in assumptions. Within the marxian framework, power is derivative of class relations, and organizations and institutions are historically changing manifestations of the dynamic patterns of relations between classes and class fractions. Thus corporations and the state are both institutional embodiments of class relations and instruments through which class power is exercised. From this vantage point, increasing involvement of the state in the internal decision-making of the corporation is hardly sufficient to demonstrate the emergence of a form of political economy distinct from capitalism or socialism. Rather, in the absence of fundamental alterations in the relations of surplus appropriation, increasing state involvement in the economy suggests a higher stage in the ‘abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself’ and the further trans- formation ‘of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, adminis- trator of other people’s capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist . . .’ (Marx, Capital, volume 3, 436).

Small workshops, family firms, national and international corporations, and the state all represent historically evolving organizational embodiments of class relations. The key issue is not whether the state has become progressively Tore involved in the accumulation process, of course it has, but whether and to what extent state involvement has fundamentally altered the class relations of capital accumulation through the production and appropriation of surplus value. In sum, why call Britain corporatist rather than state capitalist?

I t would appear that Pahl tends to underplay the essential class relations underlying changing organizational forms because he has a different con- ception ofwhat the nature of class relations is all about. Runciman’s typology is meant to provide a foundation for the development of a theory of stratifica- tion, and in the Weberian tradition Runciman and Pahl conceive of classes almost wholly as defined in terms of the forces of material production, levels of relative consumption, and mechanisms of distribution. Thus for Pahl the key problem to be investigated is the relationship between the expansion of state activity and patterns of social inequality. He therefore points to the influ- ence of the state on economic differentials among class segments in a social formation as evidence for his thesis that the state is increasingly determining class relations. The marxian paradigm, on the other hand, is a theory ofthe social relations of production and their impact on human development. Patterns of distribution and relative consumption emerge from the class relations of pro- duction. The impact of state policy on economic differentials among classes and class fractions reflects patterns of intra-class competition and inter-class s truggie.

Secondly, the state appears to embody purposes independent of class inter- ests in Pahl’s framework because state power (at least in formal democracies) derives from the consent of the governed. This, I take it, is what Runciman

Page 7: Two divergent theories of the state

Richard Child Hill 43

(1974, 62-3) means when he suggests that ‘political power has necessarily to have precedence [over economic class] since all actual property relations are subject to the tacit consent of those whose access to the means of physical coer- cion would enable them to disturb such relations if they so chose’. In my view, Runciman’s way of stating the issue poses numerous questions which are in- soluble within his own theoretical framework. For example, presumably those who have access to the means of physical coercion are themselves located in the structure of property relations. Under what conditions and for what reasons would they choose to disturb these property relations? Where do such sources of opposition come from and what would happen if they chose to ‘dis- turb’ these property relations? Would new relations of production appear? Ifso, where would they come from? Runciman begs these questions in a fashion that should incite Pahl’s rebuke given his obvious discontent with ad hoc histori- cal explanations. That is, Runciman does not attempt to develop a theory ofthe origins and transformations in modes of social control. In fact, he goes SO far as to argue that in principle such a theory is impossible to develop.

Within the marxian framework, on the other hand, new production rela- tions emerge, not exogenously or as some mysterious trick of magic but rather as a dialectical outcome of a larger historical process in which both the earlier forces and relations of production play essential roles. Marx put the matter this way, ‘It must be kept in mind that the new forces of production and rela- tions of production do not develop out of nothing, nor drop from the sky, nor from the womb of the self-positing Idea; but from within and in antithesis to the existing development of production and the inherited, traditional rela- tions of property’ (Grundrisse, 278).

It is here, I believe, that the weakness of Runciman’s approach becomes ap- parent. In Runciman’s model (1974,68) all influences on the state emanating from the world economy of which i t is a part are treated as so many ‘exo- genous disturbances’ which can be assumed away. But in treating the nation- state as the central unit of analysis, Runciman commits a profound error of abstraction. What is needed is not a typology of modes of distribution of power within industrial societies for the purposes of explaining their internal stratifi- cation patterns. Rather, what we need is a theory of how the dynamics of capital accumulation on a world scale embodied most visibly in the multi- national corporation intersect with the expanding role of nation-states such as to generate contradictions leading to transformations in social formations as well as in the capitalist system as a whole.

Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan

References

Gordon, D. 1976 : Capitalist efficiency and socialist efficiency. Monthly Review 28, 19-39.

Page 8: Two divergent theories of the state

44 Urbanism and the state: a debate

Mam, K.: Capital (three volumes. New York: International Publishers Edi-

Marx, K.: Grundrisse (New York: Random House/Vintage Books Edition,

Pahl, R. E. I 976 : ‘Collective consumption’ and the state in capitalist and state socialist societies. Paper presented at the International Conference on Urban and Regional Development, Messina-Reggio Calabria, Sicily.

Pahl, R. E. and Winkler, J. T. 1974 : The coming corporatism. New Society 10 October, 72-6.

Pickvance, C. G. I 976 : Marxist approaches to the study of urban politics: divergence.s among some recent French studies. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association Conference, Nottingham, England.

Poulantzas, N. I 973 : Politicalpower and social classes. London : New Left Booky. RunCiman, S. G. 1974: Towards a theory of social stratification. In Parkin,

Sweezy, P. 1968: The theory o f capitalist development. New York: Monthly

tion, 1973).

‘973).

F., editor, The social analysis o f class structure, London: Tavistock.

Review Press.