What is the decentered state?
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| Author | Mark Bevir |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076720904993 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
2022, Vol. 37(1) 3 –21
What is the
decentered state?
Mark Bevir
University of California, Berkeley, USA
Abstract
This article provides an introduction to discussions and empirical studies of the decen-
tered state. The first section traces the historical origins of the concept of the decen-
tered state. Group theory and interorganizational theory drew attention to the role of
diverse actors in policymaking. The study of policy networks explored these actors and
their relationships. The concept of the hollow state arose to describe a state made up
of proliferating networks. Finally, postfoundationalists amended these earlier ideas by
insisting that the state should not be reified. There are, then, at least three different
versions of the decentered state—the pluralist state, the hollow state, and the stateless
state. The second section shows how the postfoundationalism of decentered theory
transforms the earlier debates about network governance and pluralist democracy. The
final section suggests that decentered theory privileges empirical studies of the stateless
state and in particular of narratives, rationalities, and resistance.
Keywords
Decentered state, interpretive, postfoundationalism
What is the decentered state?
This special issue contains studies of the decentered nature of the contemporary
state. Nonetheless, the reader may notice that these studies highlight different if
overlapping features of the decentered state. There has been no attempt to impose
a single definition. On the contrary, I have deliberately chosen to present the
decentered state as a broad concept encompassing disparate views and topics.
Corresponding author:
Mark Bevir, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA.
Email: mbevir@berkeley.edu
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0952076720904993
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
Special Issue: Decentred State
4 Public Policy and Administration 37(1)
Equally, although there are differences among scholars who evoke a decentered
state, I believe much is to be gained by stressing their commonalities. So, on the
one hand, I will use this introduction to explore some of the different ways in
which one might conceive of the state as being decentered, but, on the other hand,
the articles that follow are meant to illustrate some of that variety rather than to
promote an unhelpfully monolithic concept. In short, I present the decentered state
not as a fixed idea but as an exploratory research agenda.
Past
Current discussions of the decentered state continue and revise older debates about
pluralism and groups, organizations and their relationships, and policy networks
and hollowing out. Group theory and interorganizational theory drew attention to
the role of diverse actors in policymaking. The study of policy networks explored
these actors and their relationships. The concept of the hollow state arose to
describe a state made up of proliferating networks.
Group theor y. Group theory was in part an offshoot of American pluralism
(Bartelson, 2001; Bevir, 2012; Eisenberg, 1995). British pluralists, such as G. D.
H. Cole, generally sought to promote the role of guilds and trade unions within a
future socialist society (Laborde, 2000; Nicholls, 1994; Stears, 2006). American
pluralists placed much more emphasis on the inherently pluralistic nature of the
state (Gunnell, 2004). Arthur Bentley (1908) famously argued, for example, that
“all phenomena of government are phenomena of groups pressing one another”
(269). This argument provided the basis for the study of pluralism and policy
networks in the U.S. It shifted attention to the ways in which groups make deci-
sions and the ways in which the relationships between groups impact policy.
The concept of a subgovernment is just one example of the bridges that led from
an interest in pluralism to the study of policy networks. Subgovernments are gen-
erally informal and they consist of the actors that dominate an area of policy-
making. Douglass Cater (1964) developed the concept in his analysis of power in
Washington (17). Cater argued that Bentley’s group theory should be modified to
reflect the fact that pressure groups affect all aspects of policymaking, not just
legislation. In his view, Washington was increasingly fragmented with actors con-
stantly trying to retain and extend their influence. More generally, subgovernment
theory rewrote pluralism; a democratic optimism based on localism, diversity, and
participation gave way to a pessimism based on the persistent role of hidden elites
in policymaking. The state was dominated by iron triangles—coalitions of
Congress, special interests, and bureaucrats—that took little note of public opinion
(Overman and Simanton, 1986: 584).
In the late 20th century, then, group theory oscillated back and forth between
optimism and pessimism (Jordan, 1981; Jordan and Schubert, 1992). Hugh Heclo
challenged the pessimism of the concept of iron triangles. He argued it ignored the
vast majority of policymaking process and “the fairly open networks of people that
2Public Policy and Administration 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial