The Contemporary Relevance of the Concept of the State
| DOI | 10.1177/019251218600700202 |
| Date | 01 April 1986 |
| Published date | 01 April 1986 |
| Author | Klaus Von Beyme |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
115
THE
CONTEMPORARY
RELEVANCE
OF
THE
CONCEPT
OF
THE
STATE
KLAUS
VON
BEYME
The
article
begins
with
a
critical
review
of
the
use
or
non-use
of
the
concept
of
state
among
contemporary
authors,
in
particular
Olson,
Crozier,
Cassese
and
Lowi.
The
notion
of
state
as
a
mediator
of
a
variety
of
interests
is
asserted
to
be
particularly
use-
ful
to
the
neo-corporatists
but
appears
useful
also
to
the
neo-Marxists.
Some
readers
may
consider
a
discussion
of
the
state
outmoded
and
irrelevant.
American
scholars
have
sometimes
argued
that
the
state
is
either
a
legal
or
a
Marxist
term,
and
British
scholars
have
claimed
that
they
are
not
even
sure
that
the
state
is
a
legal
term,
given
that
the
con-
cept
of
the
state
is
virtually
unknown
in
British
law
and,
more
general-
ly,
appears
not
to
have
crossed
the
English
Channel.
British
scholars
describing
processes
of
state
intervention
have
usually
referred
to
&dquo;government&dquo;
when
their
French
colleagues
would
talk
about
&dquo;1’Etat.&dquo;
Is
there
more
to
be
said
than
the
remark
made
by
an
American
scholar
in
a
recent
international
debate:
&dquo;Let
them
have
their
state-we’ll
keep
our
government&dquo;?
Mancur
Olson’s
book,
&dquo;The
Rise
and
Decline
of
Nations&dquo;
(1982),
sticks
to
the
Anglo-Saxon
tradition,
which
underlies
his
basic
conclu-
sion
about
the
detrimental
impact
of
small
special-interest
groups
for
prosperity
and
consensus
in
a
country.
There
is
no
hint
of
the
state;
reference
is
made
only
to
government.
Crozier
and
Friedman’s
book,
&dquo;L’acteur
et
le
syst~me&dquo;
(1978),
does
not
have
the
state
as
a
reference
in
its
index.
More
than
Olson,
Crozier
emphasizes
the
reciprocity
of
&dquo;collective
action
and
organization&dquo;
(1978:
17),
although
he
accepts
many
basic
propositions
of
Olson’s
former
study,
The
Logic
of
Col-
lective
Action.
Even
in
Cassese’s
study
on
the
Italian
administrative
system
(1983),
the
state
appears
rather
late
on
the
scene.
Cassese
em-
phasizes,
however,
that
today,
in
contrast
to
the
times
of
Cavour
and
Giolitti,
the
public
functions
can
no
longer
be
referred
to
as
&dquo;the
To continue reading
Request your trial