Introduction: The Many Hands of the State

Kimberly J. Morgan*, Ann Shola Orloff

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingForeword/postscript

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The study of states over the past three or four decades calls forth a number of paradoxes. First, intensifying interest in studying states has run parallel to the intensifying forces of globalization. The more states seem to be entangled in global economic, social, cultural, and political forces, the more scholars reach for the term “state” in their analyses, even as they eschew the “Westphalian” understanding of nation-states as the only proper unit of analysis. The intellectual focus on states also has spilled over into the policy domain, as actors operating within international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank – the very agents of globalization – have become fixated on shoring up states around the globe. Although many once advocated shrinking public sectors so as to liberate markets, many policymakers now believe that building up states and improving their “quality” (e.g., governance) is vital for economic development or political stability.

A second paradox is that the drive to focus on the state as an analytic category developed powerfully within U.S. academia, despite the widespread sense of many that the United States has a governing apparatus that operates in fundamentally different ways than what the literature on states – above all in Europe – suggested. Perhaps the state has become an enduring scholarly preoccupation of United States-based scholars because they feel most keenly the disjuncture between the projection of U.S. power around the globe and antistatist political currents back home. The history of U.S. statebuilding also contains a perplexing mix of power and impotence: fragmented decision-making structures, multiple layers of government, and pervasive intertwining of public and private authority, yet also a remarkable capacity to conquer, enslave, surveil, and imprison. Because the operation of political authority in the United States fits uneasily with the ideal-typical state lurking in the scholarly imagination, there is a growing literature seeking to better understand what “the state” is and means in the U.S. context.

The third paradox lies in the fact that, even as we have seen the waning of debates between “state-centered” and “society-centered” theories of the state, its autonomy (or lack thereof), and its capacities, studies of states have increased and diversified, drawing on novel but more dispersed varieties of theorizing.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Many Hands of the State
Subtitle of host publicationTheorizing Political Authority and Social Control
EditorsKimberly J Morgan, Ann Shola Orloff
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages1-32
Number of pages32
ISBN (Electronic)9781316471586
ISBN (Print)9781107135291
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 27 2017

Fingerprint

globalization
theory of the state
political stability
IMF
International Organizations
World Bank
nation state
projection
economics
public sector
autonomy
governance
decision making
lack
market
history
literature
imagination
Society

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Morgan, K. J., & Orloff, A. S. (2017). Introduction: The Many Hands of the State. In K. J. Morgan, & A. S. Orloff (Eds.), The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control (pp. 1-32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316471586.001
Morgan, Kimberly J. ; Orloff, Ann Shola. / Introduction : The Many Hands of the State. The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control. editor / Kimberly J Morgan ; Ann Shola Orloff. Cambridge University Press, 2017. pp. 1-32
@inbook{d993bdf714b24b818979f52efa062fd5,
title = "Introduction: The Many Hands of the State",
abstract = "The study of states over the past three or four decades calls forth a number of paradoxes. First, intensifying interest in studying states has run parallel to the intensifying forces of globalization. The more states seem to be entangled in global economic, social, cultural, and political forces, the more scholars reach for the term “state” in their analyses, even as they eschew the “Westphalian” understanding of nation-states as the only proper unit of analysis. The intellectual focus on states also has spilled over into the policy domain, as actors operating within international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank – the very agents of globalization – have become fixated on shoring up states around the globe. Although many once advocated shrinking public sectors so as to liberate markets, many policymakers now believe that building up states and improving their “quality” (e.g., governance) is vital for economic development or political stability.A second paradox is that the drive to focus on the state as an analytic category developed powerfully within U.S. academia, despite the widespread sense of many that the United States has a governing apparatus that operates in fundamentally different ways than what the literature on states – above all in Europe – suggested. Perhaps the state has become an enduring scholarly preoccupation of United States-based scholars because they feel most keenly the disjuncture between the projection of U.S. power around the globe and antistatist political currents back home. The history of U.S. statebuilding also contains a perplexing mix of power and impotence: fragmented decision-making structures, multiple layers of government, and pervasive intertwining of public and private authority, yet also a remarkable capacity to conquer, enslave, surveil, and imprison. Because the operation of political authority in the United States fits uneasily with the ideal-typical state lurking in the scholarly imagination, there is a growing literature seeking to better understand what “the state” is and means in the U.S. context.The third paradox lies in the fact that, even as we have seen the waning of debates between “state-centered” and “society-centered” theories of the state, its autonomy (or lack thereof), and its capacities, studies of states have increased and diversified, drawing on novel but more dispersed varieties of theorizing.",
author = "Morgan, {Kimberly J.} and Orloff, {Ann Shola}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1017/9781316471586.001",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107135291",
pages = "1--32",
editor = "Morgan, {Kimberly J} and Orloff, {Ann Shola}",
booktitle = "The Many Hands of the State",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Morgan, KJ & Orloff, AS 2017, Introduction: The Many Hands of the State. in KJ Morgan & AS Orloff (eds), The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316471586.001

Introduction : The Many Hands of the State. / Morgan, Kimberly J.; Orloff, Ann Shola.

The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control. ed. / Kimberly J Morgan; Ann Shola Orloff. Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. 1-32.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingForeword/postscript

TY - CHAP

T1 - Introduction

T2 - The Many Hands of the State

AU - Morgan, Kimberly J.

AU - Orloff, Ann Shola

PY - 2017/2/27

Y1 - 2017/2/27

N2 - The study of states over the past three or four decades calls forth a number of paradoxes. First, intensifying interest in studying states has run parallel to the intensifying forces of globalization. The more states seem to be entangled in global economic, social, cultural, and political forces, the more scholars reach for the term “state” in their analyses, even as they eschew the “Westphalian” understanding of nation-states as the only proper unit of analysis. The intellectual focus on states also has spilled over into the policy domain, as actors operating within international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank – the very agents of globalization – have become fixated on shoring up states around the globe. Although many once advocated shrinking public sectors so as to liberate markets, many policymakers now believe that building up states and improving their “quality” (e.g., governance) is vital for economic development or political stability.A second paradox is that the drive to focus on the state as an analytic category developed powerfully within U.S. academia, despite the widespread sense of many that the United States has a governing apparatus that operates in fundamentally different ways than what the literature on states – above all in Europe – suggested. Perhaps the state has become an enduring scholarly preoccupation of United States-based scholars because they feel most keenly the disjuncture between the projection of U.S. power around the globe and antistatist political currents back home. The history of U.S. statebuilding also contains a perplexing mix of power and impotence: fragmented decision-making structures, multiple layers of government, and pervasive intertwining of public and private authority, yet also a remarkable capacity to conquer, enslave, surveil, and imprison. Because the operation of political authority in the United States fits uneasily with the ideal-typical state lurking in the scholarly imagination, there is a growing literature seeking to better understand what “the state” is and means in the U.S. context.The third paradox lies in the fact that, even as we have seen the waning of debates between “state-centered” and “society-centered” theories of the state, its autonomy (or lack thereof), and its capacities, studies of states have increased and diversified, drawing on novel but more dispersed varieties of theorizing.

AB - The study of states over the past three or four decades calls forth a number of paradoxes. First, intensifying interest in studying states has run parallel to the intensifying forces of globalization. The more states seem to be entangled in global economic, social, cultural, and political forces, the more scholars reach for the term “state” in their analyses, even as they eschew the “Westphalian” understanding of nation-states as the only proper unit of analysis. The intellectual focus on states also has spilled over into the policy domain, as actors operating within international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank – the very agents of globalization – have become fixated on shoring up states around the globe. Although many once advocated shrinking public sectors so as to liberate markets, many policymakers now believe that building up states and improving their “quality” (e.g., governance) is vital for economic development or political stability.A second paradox is that the drive to focus on the state as an analytic category developed powerfully within U.S. academia, despite the widespread sense of many that the United States has a governing apparatus that operates in fundamentally different ways than what the literature on states – above all in Europe – suggested. Perhaps the state has become an enduring scholarly preoccupation of United States-based scholars because they feel most keenly the disjuncture between the projection of U.S. power around the globe and antistatist political currents back home. The history of U.S. statebuilding also contains a perplexing mix of power and impotence: fragmented decision-making structures, multiple layers of government, and pervasive intertwining of public and private authority, yet also a remarkable capacity to conquer, enslave, surveil, and imprison. Because the operation of political authority in the United States fits uneasily with the ideal-typical state lurking in the scholarly imagination, there is a growing literature seeking to better understand what “the state” is and means in the U.S. context.The third paradox lies in the fact that, even as we have seen the waning of debates between “state-centered” and “society-centered” theories of the state, its autonomy (or lack thereof), and its capacities, studies of states have increased and diversified, drawing on novel but more dispersed varieties of theorizing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049185897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049185897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/9781316471586.001

DO - 10.1017/9781316471586.001

M3 - Foreword/postscript

AN - SCOPUS:85049185897

SN - 9781107135291

SP - 1

EP - 32

BT - The Many Hands of the State

A2 - Morgan, Kimberly J

A2 - Orloff, Ann Shola

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Morgan KJ, Orloff AS. Introduction: The Many Hands of the State. In Morgan KJ, Orloff AS, editors, The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control. Cambridge University Press. 2017. p. 1-32 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316471586.001