State Formation is the Process of the Development of a Centralized Government Structure in a Situation Where One Did Not Exist Prior to Its Development

State formation is the process of the development of a centralized government structure in a situation where one did not exist prior to its development. State formation formation has been a study of many disciplines of the social sciences for a number of years, so much so that Jonathan Haas writes that "One of the favorite pastimes of social scientists over the course of the past century has been to theorize about the evolution of the worlds great civilizations."!# civilizations."!# $he study of state formation formation is divided di vided generally into either the study of early states %those that developed in stateless societies& or the study of modern states %particularly of the form that developed in 'urope in the ())s and spread around the world&. * number of di+erent theories explain the development of early states and modern states, and many of the academic debates remain prominent in di+erent elds of study.!-# study.!-#

ontents

 $he state - 'xplaining early states and explaining modern states -. 'arly state formation -.- /odern state formation 0 $heories about early state development 0. 1oluntary theories 0.- on2ict theories 0.0 Other theories 0.3 4iscredited theories 3 $heories about modern state development 3. 5arfare 5arfare theories 3.- 6eudal crisis theories 3.0 ultural theories 3.3 Outside 'urope 7 See also ( 8otes 9 :ibliography ; 6urther reading

 $he state /ain article< State %polity&

 $here is no clear consensus on the dening characteristics of a state and the denition can vary signicantly based upon the focus of the particular study.!0# =n general though, for studies of state formation, the state is considered to be a territorially bound political unit with centralized institutions for the administration of governance, as distinct from tribes or units without centralized institutions.!3#

*ccording to >ainter ? Je+rey, there are 7 distinctive features of the modern state. & they are ordered by precise boundaries with administrative control across the whole. -& they occupy large territories with control given to organized institutions. 0& they have to have a capital and be based somewhere with symbols that embody state power. 3& allows for state organizations to monitor, govern and control its population through police surveillance, electronic surveillance and record @eeping by the state 7& monitoring has increased over time.!7# 'xplaining early states and explaining modern states

 $heories of state formation have two distinct focuses, depending largely on the eld of study<

the early transition in human society from tribal communities into larger political organizations. Studies of this topic, often in anthropology, explore the initial development of basic administrative structures in areas where states developed from stateless societies.!(# *lthough state formation was an active research agenda in anthropology and archaeology until the A;)s, some of the e+ort has changed to focus not on why these states formed but on how they operated.!9# in contrast, studies in political science and in sociology have focused signicantly on the formation of the modern state.!;#

'arly state formation Bist of >rimary States!A# *rea 'gypt *bydos

0))) :'

/esopotamia

Dru@!)#

6irst State

0))) :'

*pproximate Cear

=ndus Eiver 1alley Harappa

-))) :'

8orth hina Shang 4ynasty!#

;)) :'

>eru /oche, $iwana@u, and 5ari!-# 0))F7)) ' /esoamerica

/onte *lbGn!0#

)) :'

Studies of early state formation focus on "primary states" %of which there may be few& and on early states %which formed in di+erent parts of the world throughout history&.

>rimary states are dened by *nthropologists Spencer ? Eedmond as those states that developed in a context with no contact or prior development of a state in the area. $hese are those situations where states developed for the rst time in that social environment.!A# $he exact number of cases which ualify as primary states is not clearly @nown because of limited information about political organization before the development of writing in many placesI!)# However, the list typically includes the rst states to develop in 'gypt, /esopotamia, the =ndus river valley, 8orth hina, >eru, and /esoamerica.!A# ohen identies six zones of  independent state developmenteru 5est *frica 'ast *frica   >olynesia

Studies on the formation of early states tend to focus on processes that create and institutionalize a state in a situation where a state did not exist before. 'xamples of early states which developed in interaction with other states include the *egean :ronze *ge ree@ civilizations and the /alagasy civilization in /adagascar.!7# Dnli@e primary state formation, early state formation does not reuire the creation of the rst state in that cultural context or development autonomously, independently from state development nearby. 'arly state formation causation can thus include borrowing, imposition, and other forms of interaction with already existing states.!(# /odern state formation

 $heories on the formation of modern states focus on the processes that support the development of modern states, particularly those that formed in lateF medieval 'urope and then spread around the world with colonialism. Starting in the A3)s and A7)s, with decolonization processes underway, attention began to focus on the formation and construction of modern states with signicant bureaucracies, ability to tax, and territorial sovereignty around the world.!9#!;# However, some scholars hold that the modern state model formed in other parts of the world prior to colonialism, but that colonial structures replaced it.!A#  $heories about early state development

 $here are a number of di+erent theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that see@ generalizations to explain why the state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own.!A# 1oluntary theories Dru@ one of the prime sites for research into early state formation

1oluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as a result of some shared rational interest.!-)# $he theories largely focus on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. $he argument is that such pressures result in integrative pressure for rational people to unify and create a state.!-# /uch of the social contract philosophical traditional proposed a voluntary theory for state formation.!--#

One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the hydraulic hypothesis, which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain largeFscale irrigation proKects.!-0# $he theory was most signicantly detailed Larl *ugust 5ittfogels argument that, in arid environments, farmers would be confronted by the production limits of smallFscale irrigation. 'ventually di+erent agricultural producers would Koin together in response to population pressure and the arid environment, to create a state apparatus that could build and maintain large irrigation proKects.!-3#

=n addition to this, is what arneiro calls the automatic hypothesis, which contends that the development of agriculture easily produces conditions necessary for the development of a state. 5ith surplus food stoc@s created by agricultural development, creation of distinct wor@er classes and a division of labor would automatically trigger creation of the state form.!-)#

* third voluntary hypothesis, particularly common with some explanations of early state development, is that long distance trade networ@s created an impetus for states to develop at @ey locations< such as ports or oases. 6or example, the increased trade in the 7))s may have been a @ey to state formation in 5est *frican states such as 5hydah, 4ahomey, and the :enin 'mpire.!-0# on2ict theories

on2ict theories of state formation regard con2ict and dominance of some population over another population as @ey to the formation of states.!-3# =n contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benets, but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others. * number of di+erent theories rely on con2ict, dominance, or oppression as a causal process or as a necessary mechanism within certain conditions and they may borrow from other approaches. =n general the theories highlight< economic stratication, conuest of  other peoples, con2ict in circumscribed areas, and the neoevolutionary growth of bureaucracy. >anorama of /onte *lbGn in presentFday /exico, seen from the South >latform. *rcheologists often times loo@ for evidence of such "largeFscale construction proKects, trade networ@s, and religious systems" to identify early states.!-7#

'conomic stratication

6riedrich 'ngels articulated one of the earliest theories of the state based on anthropological evidence in $he Origin of the 6amily, >rivate >roperty and the State %;;3&.!-(# $he theory of 'ngels developed from study of *ncient Society %;99& by Bewis H. /organ and from the s@etches of this wor@ by Larl /arx on the *siatic mode of production.!-9# 'ngels argues that the state developed as a result of the need to protect private property. $he theory contended that surplus production as a result of the development of agriculture created a division and specialization of labor< leading to classes who wor@ed the land and to those who could devote time to other tas@s. lass antagonism and the need to secure the private property of those living on the surplus production produced by agriculturalists resulted in the creation of the state.!-;#

$he anthropologist /orton 6ried %A-0FA;(& further developed this approach, positing social stratication as the primary dynamic underlying the development of the state.!-A#

onuest theories

Similar to the economic stratication theories, the conuest theory contends that a single city establishes a state in order to control other tribes or settlements it has conuered. $he theory has its roots in the wor@ of =bn Lhaldun %00-F3)(& and of Jean :odin %70)M7A(&, but it was rst organized around anthropological evidence by 6ranz Oppenheimer %;(3FA30&.!0)#!0# Oppenheimer argues that the state was created to cement ineuality between peoples that resulted from conuest.!0-#

arneiros circumscription theory

 $he mountain Huayna >icchu overloo@s the ruins of /achu >icchu. $he *ndes mountains circumscribed much of the region.

/ain article< arneiros circumscription theory

Eobert arneiro developed a theory %A9)&!00# aiming to provide a more nuanced understanding of state formation by accounting for the fact that many factors %surplus agriculture, warfare, irrigation, conuest, etc.& did not produce states in all situations. He concluded that while population pressure and warfare were mechanisms of state formation, they only created states in geographic regions circumscribed, or walled o+ from the surrounding area.!03# eographic barriers %or in some cases barriers created by nomadic raiders or by rival societies& create limitations on the ability of the people to deal with production shortfalls, and the result is that warfare results in state creation.!-A# =n situations of unlimited agricultural land %li@e the *mazon or the 'astern Dnited States&, arneiro believes that the pressures did not exist and so warfare allowed people to move elsewhere and thus did not spur creation of a state.!07#

8eoevolutionary theories

6urther information< 8eoevolutionism

* number of di+erent theories, sometimes connected with some of the processes above, explain state formation in terms of the evolution of leadership systems. $his argument sees human society as evolving from tribes or chiefdoms

into states through a gradual process of transformation that lets a small group hierarchically structure society and maintain order through appropriation of symbols of power.!0(# roups that gained power in tribal society gradually wor@ed towards building the hierarchy and segmentation that created the state. !09#

'lman Service %A7FAA(& proposed that, unli@e in economic stratication theories, the state largely creates stratication in society rather than being created to defend that stratication.!0;# :ureaucracy evolves to support the leadership structure in tribes and uses religious hierarchy and economic stratication as a means to further increase its power.!0A# 5arfare may play a @ey role in the situation, because it allows leaders to distribute benets in ways that serve their interests, however it is a constant that feeds the system rather than an autonomous factor.!3)# Similarly, anthropologist Henry $. 5right argues %-))(& that competitive and con2ictual environments produce political experimentation leading to the development of the state. *s opposed to theories that the state develops through chance or tin@ering, experimentation involves a more directed process where tribal leaders learn from organization forms of the past and from the outcomes they produced.!3#

Other theories

Other aspects are highlighted in di+erent theories as of contributing importance. =t is sometimes claimed that technological development, religious development, or socialization of members are crucial to state development. However, most of these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological analysis.!3-# =n addition to conuest, some theories contend that the need for defense from military conuest or the military organization to conuer other peoples is the @ey aspect leading to state formation.!-0# 4iscredited theories

Some theories proposed in the ;))s and early A))s have since been largely discredited by anthropologists. $hese include theories that early state formation resulted from racial superiority, historical accident, or from a shared consciousness of the people.!-)# Similarly, Social 4arwinism perspectivesN prominent in the wor@ of 5alter :agehotN maintained that the state form developed as a result of the best leaders and organized societies gradually gaining power until the state formed. $hese are not considered sucient causes in recent scholarship.!0)#  $heories about modern state development

=n the medieval period %7))F3)) '& in 'urope, there were a variety of authority forms throughout the region. $hese included feudal lords, empires, religious authorities, free cities, and other authorities.!30# Often dated to the (3; >eace of 5estphalia, there began to be the development in 'urope of modern states with largeFscale capacity for taxation, coercive control of their populations, and advanced bureaucracies.!33# $he state became prominent in 'urope over the next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the world via the colonial and international pressures of the ;))s and A))s.!37# Other modern states developed in *frica and *sia prior to colonialism, but were largely displaced by colonial rule.!3(#

>olitical scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists began studying the state formation processes in 'urope and elsewhere in the ())sNbeginning signicantly with /ax 5eber. However, state formation became a primary interest in the A9)s. $he uestion was often framed as a contest between state forces and society forces and the study of how the state became prominent over particular societies.!39# * number of theories developed regarding state development in 'urope. Other theories focused on the creation of states in late colonial and postFcolonial societies.!3;# $he lessons from these studies of the formation of states in the modern period are often used in theories about StateF building. Other theories contend that the state in 'urope was constructed in connection with peoples from outside 'urope and that focusing on state formation in 'urope as a foundation for study silences the diverse history of state formation.!3A# 5arfare theories * woodcut of the 4efenestrations of >rague in (;Nwhich began the $hirty  Cears 5ar and ended with the >eace of 5estphalia that started the recognition of  the modern state.

 $wo related theories are based on military development and warfare, and the role that these forces played in state formation. harles $illy developed an argument that the state developed largely as a result of "stateFma@ers" who sought to increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they could continue ghting wars.!30# =n the constant warfare of the centuries in 'urope, coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder, warlords had to nd ways to nance war and control territory more e+ectively.  $he modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation structures, the coercive structure to implement that taxation, and nally the guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of the population to agree.!7)#

/ichael Eoberts and eo+rey >ar@er, in contrast, nds that the primary causal factor was not the "stateFma@ers" themselves, but simply the military revolutions

that allowed development of larger armies.!7# $he argument is that with the expanded state of warfare, the state became the only administrative unit that could endure in the constant warfare in the 'urope of this period, because only it could develop large enough armies.!7-# $his viewNthat the modern state replaced chaos and general violence with internal disciplinary structuresNhas been challenged as ethnocentric, and ignoring the violence of modern states.!70# 6eudal crisis theories

*nother argument contends that the state developed out of economic and social crises that were prominent in lateFmedieval 'urope. Eeligious wars between atholics and >rotestants, and the involvement of leaders in the domains of other leaders under religious reasons was the primary problem dealt with in the >eace of 5estphalia.!33# =n addition, /arxist theory contends that the economic crisis of  feudalism forced the aristocracy to adapt various centralized forms of organization so they could retain economic power, and this resulted in the formation of the modern state.!73# ultural theories

Some scholarship, lin@ed to wider debates in *nthropology, has increasingly emphasized the state as a primarily cultural artifact, and focuses on how symbolism plays a primary role in state formation.!77# /ost explicitly, some studies emphasize how the creation of national identication and citizenship were crucial to state formation. $he state then is not simply a military or economic authority, but also includes cultural components creating consent by people by giving them rights and shared belonging.!3;# Outside 'urope

/odern states were created without 'uropean in2uence in some parts of *frica, Batin *merica, and elsewhere before colonialism.!7(# However, much of attention has focused on how states developed in *frica in the situation of postFcolonial state formation.!79# *lthough warfare is primary in many theories of state formation in 'urope, with the development of the international norm of nonF interventionism this process of state formation has decreased in relevance!7;# and other processes of state formation have become prominent outside 'urope %including colonial imposition, assimilation, borrowing, and some internal political processes&.!79#

One explicit theory of the expansion of the state formation outside 'urope is John 5. /eyers 5orld Society $heory, which contends that the state form was part of a di+usion from 'urope, institutionalized in the Dnited 8ations, and gradually the nationFstate became the basis for both those in power and those challenging

power.!7A# =n addition, since the rst modern states %the Dnited Lingdom, Dnited States, and 6rance& too@ over signicant empires in much of the rest of the world, it is sometimes argued that they set the institutional starts and that future developments were either imposed or copied from them because they were seen as successful.!7A# See also

ivil Society   Sovereignty lobal governance State of nature