While defining a state, it is important not to confuse it with a nation; an error that occurs frequently in common discussion. A state refers to
a political unit with sovereignty over a given territory. While a state is more of a "political-legal abstraction," the definition of a nation is
more concerned with political identity and cultural or historical factors. Importantly, nations do not possess the organizational
characteristics like geographic boundaries or authority figures and officials that states do. Additionally, a nation does not have a claim to a
monopoly on the legitimate use of force over their populace,
[26]
while a state does, as Weber indicated. An example of the instability that
arises when a state does not have a monopoly on the use of force can be seen in African states which remain weak due to the lack of war
which European states relied on.
[27]
A state should not be confused with a government; a government is an organization that has been
granted the authority to act on the behalf of a state. Nor should a state be confused with a society; a society refers to all organized groups,
movements, and individuals who are independent of the state and seek to remain out of its influence.
[26]
Neuberger offers a slightly different definition of the state with respect to the nation: the state is "a primordial, essential, and permanent
expression of the genius of a specific [nation]."
[28]
The definition of a state is also dependent on how and why it forms. The contractarian view of the state suggests that states form because
people can all benefit from cooperation with others
[29]
and that without a state, there would be chaos.
[30]
The contractarian view focuses
more on the alignment and conflict of interests between individuals in a state. On the other hand, the predatory view of the state focuses on
the potential mismatch between the interests of the people and the interests of the state. Charles Tilly goes so far as to say that states
"resemble a form of organized crime and should be viewed as extortion rackets."
[31]
He argued that the state sells protection from itself and
raises the question about why people should trust a state when they cannot trust one another.
[26]
Tilly defines states as "coercion-wielding organisations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise a clear priority in
some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories."
[32]
Tilly includes city-states, theocracies and empires in his
definition along with nation-states, but excludes tribes, lineages, firms and churches.
[33]
According to Tilly, states can be seen in the
archaeological record as of 6000 BC; in Europe, they appeared around 990, but became particularly prominent after 1490.
[33]
Tilly defines a
state's "essential minimal activities" as:
1. War making– "eliminating or neutralizing their outside rivals"
2. State making– "eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their own territory"
3. Protection– "eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients"
4. Extraction– "acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities"
5. Adjudication– "authoritative settlement of disputes among members of the population"
6. Distribution– "intervention in the allocation of goods among the members of the population"
7.
Production– "control of the creation and transformation of goods and services produced by the population"
[34][35]
Importantly, Tilly makes the case that war is an essential part of state-making; that wars create states and vice versa.
[36]
Modern academic definitions of the state frequently include the criterion that a state has to be recognized as such by the international
community.
[37]
Liberal thought provides another possible teleology of the state. According to John Locke, the goal of the state or commonwealth is "the
preservation of property" (Second Treatise on Government), with 'property' in Locke's work referring not only to personal possessions but
also to one's life and liberty. On this account, the state provides the basis for social cohesion and productivity, creating incentives for wealth-
creation by providing guarantees of protection for one's life, liberty, and personal property. Provision ofpublic goodsis considered by some
such as
Adam Smith
[38]
as a central function of the state, since these goods would otherwise be underprovided. Tilly has challenged
narratives of the state as being the result of a societal contract or provision of services in a free market – he characterizes the state more akin
to a protection racket in the vein of organized crime.
[35]
While economic and political philosophers have contested the monopolistic tendency of states,
[39]
Robert Nozick
argues that the use of force
naturally tends towards monopoly.
[40]
Another commonly accepted definition of the state is the one given at theMontevideo Conventionon the Rights and Duties of States in 1933.
It provides that "[t]he state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a
defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
[41]
And that "[t]he federal state shall
constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."
[42]
Confounding the definition problem is that "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms in common conversation and even some
academic discourse. According to this definition schema, the states are nonphysical persons of international law, and governments are
organizations of people.
[43]
The relationship between a government and its state is one of representation and authorized agency.
[44]
Charles Tilly distinguished between empires, theocracies, city-states, and nation-states.
[33]
According to
Michael Mann
, the four persistent
types of state activities are:
1. Maintenance of internal order
Types of states