No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
Introduction
Two distinctive views of the modern state can be found in recent political science literature. One group of writers, drawing attention to the expansion of international agencies and transnational processes and organizations, have argued that these developments have precipitated an increase in the level of interdependence between states, eliminating the distinction between domestic and foreign policy and constraining the activities of governments within their own states. At the same time, another group of writers, focusing on the domestic system, have pointed to the expanding power of governments, expressed in terms of the growing range of their activities and the increasing number of policy instruments employed to monitor and control behaviour within the state. These two approaches present something of a paradox—the power of governments is depicted as expanding on the one hand, while being constrained on the other.
page 209 note 1 See, for example, Brown, L. R., World Without Borders (New York, 1972)Google Scholar: Burton, J. W., World Society (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooper, R. N., The Economics of Interdependence (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S., eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S., Power and Interdependence (Boston, 1977)Google Scholar; Mansbach, R. W., et al., The Web of World Politics (Englewood Cliffs, 1976).Google Scholar
page 209 note 2 See, for example, Ellul, J., The Technological Society (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; Galbraith, J. K., The New Industrial State (Harmondsworth, 1969)Google Scholar; Meynaud, J., Technocracy (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Shonfield, A., Modern Capitalism (London, 1969).Google Scholar
page 209 note 3 See Miliband, R., The State in Capitalist Society (New York, 1969)Google Scholar and Poulantzas, N., Political Power and Social Class (London, 1972)Google Scholar. For a debate between these two authors, see Blackburn, R. (ed.), Ideology in Social Science (Glasgow, 1972).Google Scholar
page 210 note 1 See Rosenau, J. N., ‘Pre-theories of Foreign Policy’;, in Farrell, R. B., ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, 1966)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), Linkage Politics (New York, 1969).Google Scholar
page 210 note 2 For a discussion of the traditional concept of sovereignty, see, for example, Hinsley, F. H., ‘The Concept of Sovereignty and the Relations between States’, Journal of International Affairs, 21 (1967)Google Scholar; and Hintze, O., ‘The State in Historical Perspective’, in Bendix, R., (ed.), State and Society (Boston, 1968).Google Scholar
page 210 note 3 See, for example, Rosecrance, R. and Stein, A., ‘Interdependence: Myth or Reality’;, World Politics, 26 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waltz, K. N., ‘The Myth of National Interdependence’ in Kindleberger, C. P. (ed.), The International Corporation (Cambridge, 1970).Google Scholar
page 211 note 1 The literature using a systems approach to the analysis of society is very extensive and embraces a wide range of different viewpoints. The approach used here reflects the work of, amongst others, Deutsch, K. W., Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, 1953)Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N., The Bureaucratic Systems of Empire (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Kuznets, S., ‘Stages of Economic Growth as a System Determinant’;, in Eckstein, A. (ed.), Comparison of Economic Systems (London, 1971)Google Scholar; and Nettl, J. P., ‘The Concept of System in Political Science’ , Political Studies, xiv (1966).Google Scholar
page 212 note 1 Thus, although all modern states possess mass political parties and central banks, the structure and organization of these institutions can vary considerably from one state to another. Similarly, while all states are committed to the maintenance of security and the promotion of welfare, there is considerable variation in the level of resources devoted to these two organizing principles.
page 214 note 1 There is a substantial literature on the idea of a convergence between capitalist and socialist economies. For a useful review, see Bell, D., The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (London, 1974)Google Scholar. The East-West division is now often replaced by a North-South division between high and low income countries. For an early expression of this view of global organization, see Lagos, G., International Stratification and Underdeveloped Countries (Chapel Hill, 1963)Google Scholar. All this literature tends to be misleading because if focuses on either the similarities or the differences between societies. In this paper the attempt is made to establish a framework which identifies the common features of all states but which can also take account of differences.
page 214 note 2 For an analysis of the growth of intergovernmental organizations, see Wallace, M. D. and Singer, J. D., ‘Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System’, International Organization, 24 (1970).Google Scholar
page 215 note 1 The literature on multinational corporations is immense. For a recent review see Spero, J. E., The Politics of International Economic Relations (London, 1977).Google Scholar
page 215 note 2 For an extreme expression of the world society view of global organization see Burton, J. W., World Society (Cambridge, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar