Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:41:33.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing the State Back In?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Paul Cammack
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 261 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cammack, P., ‘Dependency and the Politics of Development’, in Leeson, P. F. and Minogue, M. M., eds, Perspectives on Development (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987), pp. 89–125.Google Scholar For discussions and accounts of the ‘new consensus’, see Higgott, R., Political Development Theory (London: Croom Helm, 1983)Google Scholar, Chap. 4 and Conclusion; Randall, V. and Theobald, R., Political Change and Underdevelopment (London: Macmillan, 1985), pp. 171–7 and 187–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Binder, L., ‘The Natural History of Development Theory’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 21 (1986)Google Scholar; Bessert, T., ‘The Promise of Theory’, in Klaren, P. and Bessert, T., eds, Promise of Development: Theories of Change in Latin America (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1986)Google Scholar, and Smith, T., ‘Requiem or Agenda for Third World Studies’, World Politics, 37 (1985), 532–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T., eds, Bringing the State Back In (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The collection originated in a conference on ‘Research Implications of Current Theories of the State’, held at Mount Kisco, New York, in February 1982. In April 1983 a group of scholars (P. Evans, A. Hirschman, P. Katzenstein, I. Katznelson, S. Krasner, D. Rueschemeyer, T. Skocpol and C. Tilly) proposed to the SSRC the setting up of a Research Planning Committee on States and Social Structures; the proposal was accepted in August 1983. The volume is further sponsored by two previously established SSRC Committees, the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, and the Joint Committee on Western European Studies.

3 See Almond, G. and Coleman, J., eds, The Politics of Developing Areas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Binder, L., ed., Crises and Sequences in Political Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Almond, G., Flanagan, S. and Mundt, R., eds, Crisis, Choice and Change: Historical Studies of Political Development (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1973)Google Scholar; Tilly, C., ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Grew, R., Crisis of Political Development in Europe and the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

4 For ‘modernization revisionism’ see Randall, and Theobald, , Political Change and Underdevelopment, Chap. 4Google Scholar; for general discussions of the shifts of perspective identified, see Packenham, R., Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Kesselman, M., ‘Order or Movement: the Literature of Political Development as Ideology’, World Politics, 26 (1973), 139–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Brien, D., ‘Modernisation, Order, and the Erosion of a Democratic Ideal: American Political Science, 1960–1970’, Journal of Development Studies, 8 (1972), 351–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gendzier, I., Managing Political Change: Social Scientists and the Third World (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1985).Google Scholar

5 See Riggs, F., ‘The Rise and Fall of “Political Development”’, in Long, S. C., ed., The Handbook of Political Behaviour (New York: Plenum Press, 1981), Vol. 4.Google Scholar

6 See Almond, G., ‘Approaches to Developmental Causation’Google Scholar, in Almond, , Flanagan, and Mundt, , eds, Crisis, Choice and Change, pp. 22–4.Google Scholar

7 Skocpol, T., ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research’Google Scholar, in Evans, , Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, , eds, Bringing the State Back In, p. 28.Google Scholar

8 Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T., ‘On the Road Toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State’Google Scholar, in Bringing the State Back In, p. 363.Google Scholar

9 See Miliband, R., ‘Marx and the State’, in Bottomore, T., ed., Karl Marx (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1973)Google Scholar, an essay of particular interest, as Skocpol herself refers readers to it in her States and Social Revolutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 300, fn. 65. Interestingly, she does not refer directly, there or here, to what Marx has to say about Bonapartism. However, she does venture the view, in the earlier work (p. 26), that ‘Classical Marxist theorists do not analytically collapse state and society’.Google Scholar

10 This is the central theme of my article cited in footnote 1. For brief accounts of Cardoso's approach which bear out the point made here, see O'Brien, P., ‘Dependency Revisited’, in Abel, C. and Lewis, C., eds, Latin America, Imperialism and the State (London: Athlone Press, 1984)Google Scholar, and Roxborough, I., ‘Unity and Diversity in Latin American History’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 16 (1984), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and US Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

12 Skocpol refers to a conference paper, Finegold, K. and Skocpol, T., ‘Capitalists, Farmers, and Workers in the New Deal – The Ironies of Government Intervention’ (presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, 1980)Google Scholar, and to Skocpol, T. and Finegold, K., ‘State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal’, Political Science Quarterly, 97 (1982), 255–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The latter, on which I have relied, is a part of the conference paper.

13 Finegold, K., ‘From Agrarianism to Adjustment: The Political Origins of New Deal Agricultural Policy’, Politics & Society, 11 (1982), p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Hamilton, N., The Limits of State Autonomy: Post-Revolutionary Mexico (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hamilton states in her preface that ‘my conceptual framework is Marxism, based on the belief that Marxist theory raises the most important questions and provides the most promising method for finding the answers’ (p. viii).

15 Katznelson, I. and Prewitt, K., ‘Constitutionalism, Class, and the Limits of Choice in US Foreign Policy’, in Fagen, R., ed., Capitalism and the State in US–Latin American Relations (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1979), p. 28.Google Scholar

16 Katznelson, and Prewitt, , ‘Constitutionalism, Class, and the Limits of Choice’, pp. 27–33.Google Scholar

17 Katznelson, I., ‘Working-Class Formation and the State: Nineteenth Century England in American Perspective’Google Scholar, in Evans, , Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, , eds, Bringing the State Back In, pp. 257–84.Google Scholar

18 Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, E., Dependency and Development in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar

19 Bossert, T., ‘The Promise of Theory’, especially pp. 384–5.Google Scholar

20 For some support for these points see , J. S. and Valenzuela, A., eds, Military Rule in Chile: Dictatorship and Oppositions (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), Chaps. 1–3Google Scholar, and O'Brien, P., ‘Authoritarianism and the New Orthodoxy: The Political Economy of the Chilean Regime, 1973–1982’Google Scholar, in O'Brien, P. and Cammack, P., eds, Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

21 For a detailed account, see Smith, W., ‘Reflections of the Political Economy of Authoritarian Rule and Capitalist Reorganization in Contemporary Argentina’Google Scholar, in O'Brien, and Cammack, , eds, Generals in Retreat, pp. 37–88.Google Scholar