This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the concept of the state as a political entity. It explores various definitions, historical developments, and theoretical frameworks surrounding the state, including insights from notable sociologists like Max Weber. The text discusses the distinction between state and nation, the evolution of state forms, and the role of governance in modern societies. It also examines the relationship between state legitimacy and social contract theories, as well as the implications of state failure. The document is structured into sections that cover the etymology of the term ‘state’, its functions, and the challenges faced by contemporary states. This PDF serves as an essential resource for students and scholars interested in political science, sociology, and governance.
State (polity)
A state is a
political
entity that regulates
society
and the
population
within a definite
territory
.
[1]
Government
is considered to form the
fundamental apparatus of contemporary states.
[2][3]
Acountryoften has a single state, with variousadministrative divisions. A state may be aunitary stateor some type offederal union; in the
latter type, the term "state" is sometimes used to refer to thefederated politiesthat make up the federation, and they may have some of the
attributes of asovereign state, except being under their federation and without the same capacity to act internationally. (Other terms that are
used in such federal systems may include "province", "region" or other terms.)
For most of
prehistory
, people lived in
stateless societies
. The earliest forms of states arose about 5,500 years ago.
[4]
Over time societies
became more stratified and developed institutions leading to centralised governments. These gained state capacity in conjunction with
thegrowth of cities, which was often dependent on climate andeconomic development, with centralisation often spurred on by insecurity
and territorial competition
[5]
.
Over time, varied forms of states developed that used many different justifications for their existence (such as divine right, the theory of
the
social contract
, etc.). Today, the modern
nation state
is the predominant form of state to which people are subject.
[6]
Sovereign
stateshavesovereignty; anyingroup's claim to have a state faces some practical limits viathe degree to whichother statesrecognizethem as
such.Satellite statesare states that havede factosovereignty but are often indirectly controlled by another state.
Definitions of a state are disputed.
[7][8]
According to sociologist
Max Weber
, a "state" is a
polity
that maintains a
monopoly on the legitimate
use of violence
, although other definitions are common.
[9][10]
Absence of a state does not preclude the existence of a
society
, such as stateless
societies like the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy
that "do not have either purely or even primarily political institutions or roles".
[11]
The degree
and extent of governance of a state is used to determine whether it has
failed
.
[12]
The word state and its cognates in some other European languages (such as stato in Italian, estado in Spanish and Portuguese, état in
French,Staatin German and Dutch) ultimately derive from the Latin wordstatus, meaning "condition, circumstances". Latinstatusderives
fromstare, "to stand", or remain or be permanent, thus providing the sacred or magical connotation of the political entity.
The English noun state in the generic sense "condition, circumstances" predates the political sense. It was introduced to Middle
Englishc. 1200both fromOld Frenchand directly from Latin.
With the revival of the Roman law in 14th-century Europe, the term came to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various
"estates of the realm" – noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The highest estates, generally those
with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The word also had associations with Roman ideas (dating back toCicero)
about the "statusrei publicae", the "condition of public matters". In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and became
associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.
[13]
The early 16th-century works ofMachiavelli(especiallyThe Prince and The Discourses on Livy) played a central role in popularizing the use
of the word "state" in something similar to its modern sense.
[14]
Though in Machiavelli's time,statohad a definition closer to howstatusis
used today, and referred primarily to the position of a person or a group that has political power over individuals.
[15][16]
The contrasting of
church and state
still dates to the 16th century.
[17]
The expression"L'État, c'est moi"("
I am the State
") attributed to
Louis
XIV
, although probably apocryphal, is recorded in the late 18th century.
[18]
There is no
academic consensus
on the definition of the state.
[7]
The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often
overlapping, theories about a certain range of political
phenomena
.
[8]
According to Walter Scheidel, mainstream definitions of the state have
the following in common: "centralized institutions that impose rules, and back them up by force, over a territorially circumscribed
population; a distinction between the rulers and the ruled; and an element of autonomy, stability, and differentiation. These distinguish the
state from less stable forms of organization, such as the exercise of chiefly power."
[19]
The most commonly used definition is by
Max Weber
[20][21][22][23][24]
who describes the state as a compulsory political organization with
a
centralized
government that maintains a
monopoly of the legitimate use of force
within a certain territory.
[9][10]
Weber writes that the state
"is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."
[25]
Etymology
Definition
4/16/26, 5:15 PM
State (polity) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
1/15
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
4/16/26, 5:15 PM
State (polity) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
2/15
2. Military defence and aggression
3. Maintenance of communications infrastructure
4.
Economic redistribution
[45]
Josep Colomerdistinguished between empires and states in the following way:
1. Empires were vastly larger than states
2. Empires lacked fixed or permanent boundaries, whereas a state had fixed boundaries
3. Empires had a "compound of diverse groups and territorial units with asymmetric links with the center," whereas a state had "supreme
authority over a territory and population."
4.
Empires had multi-level, overlapping jurisdictions, whereas a state sought a monopoly and homogenization
[46]
According to Michael Hechter and William Brustein, the modern state was differentiated from "leagues of independent cities, empires,
federations held together by loose central control, and theocratic federations" by four characteristics:
1. The modern state sought and achieved territorial expansion and consolidation
2. The modern state achieved unprecedented control over social, economic, and cultural activities within its boundaries
3. The modern state established ruling institutions that were separate from other institutions
4.
The ruler of the modern state was far better at monopolizing the means of violence
[47]
States may be classified by political philosophers assovereignif they are not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. Other
states are subject to external
sovereignty
or
hegemony
where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.
[48]
Many states are
federated
states which participate in a federal union. A federated state is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of
a
federation
.
[49]
(Compare
confederacies
or confederations such as Switzerland.) Such states differ from sovereign states in that they have
transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a
federal government
.
[50]
One can commonly and sometimes readily (but not necessarily usefully) classify states according to their apparent make-up or focus. The
concept of the nation-state, theoretically or ideally co-terminous with a "nation", became very popular by the 20th century in Europe, but
occurred rarely elsewhere or at other times. In contrast, some states have sought to make a virtue of their multi-ethnic
or multinational character (Habsburg Austria-Hungary, for example, or the Soviet Union), and have emphasised unifying characteristics
such asautocracy,monarchical legitimacy, orideology. Other states, oftenfascistorauthoritarianones, promoted state-sanctioned notions
of
racial superiority
.
[51]
Other states may bring ideas of commonality and inclusiveness to the fore: note the
res publica
of ancient Rome and
theRzeczpospolita ofPoland-Lithuania which finds echoes in the modern-day republic. The concept of temple states centred on religious
shrines occurs in some discussions of the ancient world.
[52]
Relatively small
city-states
, once a relatively common and often successful form
of polity,
[53]
have become rarer and comparatively less prominent in modern times. Modern-day independent city-states include
Vatican
City, Monaco, and Singapore. Other city-states survive as federated states, like the present day German city-states, or as otherwise
autonomous entities with limited sovereignty, likeHong Kong,Gibraltar, andCeuta. To some extent,urban secession, the creation of a new
city-state (sovereign or federated), continues to be discussed in the early 21st century in cities such asLondon.
A state can be distinguished from agovernment. The state is the organization, while the government is the particular group of people, the
administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time.
[54][55][56]
That is, governments are the means through which
state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.
[56]
States are immaterial and nonphysical
social objects, whereas governments are groups of people with certain coercive powers.
[57]
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals who monopolize political decision-making and
are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole.
States can also be distinguished from the concept of a "nation", where "nation" refers to a cultural-political community of people. Anation-
staterefers to a situation where a single ethnicity is associated with a specific state.
In the classical thought, the state was identified with both political society and civil society as a form of political community, while the
modern thought distinguished the
nation state
as a political society from civil society as a form of economic society.
[58]
Thus, in modern thought, the state is contrasted with civil society.
[59][60][61]
Antonio Gramsci believed that civil society is the primary locus of political activity because it is where all forms of "identity formation,
ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the construction of hegemony take place," and that civil society was the nexus
connecting the economic and political spheres. Arising out of the collective actions of civil society is what Gramsci calls "political society",
which Gramsci differentiates from the notion of the state as a polity. He stated that politics was not a "one-way process of political
management" but, rather, that the activities of civil organizations conditioned the activities of political parties and state institutions, and
State and government
States and nation-states
State and civil society
4/16/26, 5:15 PM
State (polity) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
3/15
End of Document
406
