Research To The Relationship Between State Autonomy And State Capacity In "Back To The State" Perspective

Since the1970s, a group of social historians such as Anderson, Tillyand Skocpol pointed out that the tendency to debate political power undera social-centered paradigm in western academia underestimated the autonomyand capacity of state to a great extent. As a consequence, they advocateda research perspective which is state-centered, and emphasized the statehas the independent space to take action with its administrative resources,information channels, and the professional knowledge of governance. Thestate is not always in accordance with the needs of social interests, butdominating the society from its own interests. These scholars who advocatethe state-centered research perspective are called “back to state” school.Since then, the concepts of state autonomy and state capacity have becomethe important indicators in interpreting and comparing the governanceperformance of developed countries and the process of modernization of thelate developing countries. Nowadays, some countries in East Asian and LatinAmerica make a great achievement with the state-directed model, whichattract worldwide attention. However, despite the achievements, the modelof building a strong state autonomy in order to promote the state capacityhas been proved limited for all the late developing countries.There are different interpretations about the relationship betweenstate autonomy and state capacity in the “back to state” school at thelevel of theory, among which Skocpol, Rueschemeyer and Mann made the mostsignificant discussion. Therefore, this study attempts to clarify thepositive, negative and dialectic relationships between state autonomy andstate capacity through reviewing the demonstrations of the three scholarsfrom the perspective of history of thought. According to my comparative analysis, I point that there are differences in three aspects behind theirinterpretations on the relationships. The three aspects are the questionbackground, the path for an organization to implement autonomy and theinterpretations on the concept of state.In addition to the introduction, this paper consists of four parts:The first part introduces Skocpol’s concept of state autonomy and theanalysis to the state capacity regarded as the condition for the implementof state autonomy by her. Reviewing the controversial theory on revolution,Skocpol believes that state as an organization with independent interestshas possibilities to set targets differing from any interests or needs ofsocial interest groups. State capacity, especially the professional andthe unity of the bureaucracy, will directly affect the achievement inimplement the state autonomy. In the meanwhile, the expansion of stateautonomy will also promote the development of state capacity.The second part introduces Rueschemeyer’s interpretation of stateautonomy and the analysis to the contradiction and conflict between stateautonomy and state capacity. Rueschemeyer believes the state does play arole as a collective actor, however, it emerges an area inevitably whereall kinds of social interest groups compete with each other. The tensionsbetween this two kinds of roles limited the ambition of state to developits autonomy and capacity simultaneously.The third part introduces Mann’s dialectical point of view on therelationship between state autonomy and state capacity with his twodimensions of state power concept. Through a analysis to the long historyof agricultural civilization, Mann believes state relying on theconcentration of power in the structure and operation mode got itsadvantage compared with each social power group, which made it be capableto implement the autonomic power. But this autonomic power is fragile, theautonomy of the state has been in a dialectical fluctuation.The forth part compares and analyses the different opinions hold bySkocpol, Rueschemeyer and Mann on the relationship between state autonomyand state capacity. This study believes that these scholars havedivergences at three aspects at least. They are reflected in the background of questions, the path for an organization to implement autonomy and theinterpretations on the concept of state. These divergences lead thedifferent interpretation of the relationship.This study finds that we should adopt a cautious approach to researchthe conflict between theory and experiential facts when we explain thehistory, social structure and transnational relations of the modern statewith the concepts of state autonomy or state capacity. Theories on stateautonomy and state capacity are kinds of empirical theory summarized andinduced on the basis of practices, and they have to face the paradox betweenthe scientific rationality and the specific circumstance. In order tointerpret the relationships between the two concepts better, we need tomake the analysis under specific temporal and spatial environment.