Introduction
This book is an introduction to the major theoretical approaches cur
rently utilized by Marxist scholars as frameworks for the conduct of
empirical or historical research on public policy and political develop
ment. The book is not intended as a comprehensive survey ofthe entire
field of state theory, but is focused on plain Marxist, neo-Marxist,
and post-Marxist theories of the state.1 Three types of individuals are
most likely to find the book useful. First, university students should
find the book helpful in defining and formulating research problems on
the state. Second, scholars who are not specialists in state theory but
who are seeking to stay abreast of an important literature will find a
concise summary and history of the Marxian contribution to that field.
Finally, the new emphasis in social science on theoretically informed
policy studies will commend the present survey to scholars working
in various specialized fields of public policy and comparative political
development.
Design and Scope of the Text
There are certainly some people who will question the value of yet
another rendering of the state of state theory. Consequently, it is worth
noting that the scope and design of this text differs from similar books
in several ways.2 First, there are certainly several quasi-texts of varying
quality already on the market, but the existing books serve more as
platforms for advanced theorizing, and, thus, they tend to presume a
fair degree of familiarity with previous literature on the state. It is perhaps
hard for senior scholars to remember just how difficult it is to read
authors such as Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, or Claus Offe for
the first time as a graduate or undergraduate student. Indeed, for those
scholars who have labored on state theory throughout their careers, it
may come as a surprise to note that most undergraduates and even some
graduate students were not even born in the heyday of the Miliband
Poulantzas debate, the watershed event which captured the attention
of so many graduate students in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Given
this long history, a brief reprise of the literature now seems in order.
However, more important, I have chosen to write a survey that is un
compromisingly designed as an introductory orientation for the novice.
Thus, one important difference between this book and similar ones is
the level on which it is written.3 Similarly, I have attempted to render
an often obscure and jargon-laden literature as accessible as possible
without sacrificing its conceptual or technical integrity.4
Second, both for brevity and for theoretical reasons, Ihave dispensed
with the orthodox ritual of retracing the genealogy of Karl Marx’s
and Friedrich Engels’s thinking on the state. Several of the existing
works have already done an excellent job of this task.5 The result of
such analyses has made it painfully evident, as Bob Jessop concludes,
that Marx “did not offer a theoretical analysis of the capitalist state
to match the scope and rigour of Das Kapital. His work on the state
comprises a fragmented and unsystematic series of philosophical re
flections, contemporary history, journalism and incidental remarks.”6
Thus, although reading Capital and other works by Marx will always
have its place in Marxian political theory, we are well beyond the point
of thinking that such readings will yield a well-defined Marxist theory
of the state? Quite the contrary, as I will demonstrate in subsequent
chapters, there are real tensions in Marx’s thought that allow for the
articulation of several competing approaches to the state.
Third, therefore, this text is further distinguished from similar books
by its emphasis on the historical and logical development of the com
peting approaches.8 Rather than focusing on specific concepts (e.g.,
hegemony or autonomy) and analyzing the use of those concepts across
competing schools of thought, I have opted for modular presentations
of entire theories. This strategy has made it possible to clarify more
effectively the kinds of hypothetical assumptions that are made by the
proponents of each theory and to draw out the contrasting logics of
explanation that underlie each approach. This process has been facili
tated by reconstructing particular schools of thought around a highly
selective examination of specific theorists who are taken to represent
the competing theoretical approaches. The advantage to this technique
is that it enables the text to maintain a sharpness of focus and a logical
continuity in presentation that would not otherwise be possible.
Critical Theories ofthe State started as a set of preliminary notes for
an undergraduate seminar which I first taught at the University of
Massachusetts-Dartmouth in 1988. Two years later, at the request of
seminar students, the notes were expanded into a series ofshort papers
and placed in the library for reserve reading. It was not long thereafter
that I decided to rework the papers into their current form and publish
them as a short book designed for courses in state theory and political
development. Thus, the many students who inspired this work deserve
my sincere thanks. Moreover, in each of the last three years, a special
student has emerged in the seminar, and each warrants special men
tion for his or her exceptional contribution to the development of this
text. Joe LaValley, who sparked my interest in several strains of post
Marxist theory, has gone on to graduate studies in sociology at the
University of California, Los Angeles. Darin Conforti, who initiated
countless conversations on the works of Claus Offe and the new social
movement theory, is now a graduate student in political theory at the
State University of New York-Albany. Lynn Miller, who also served as
my research assistant for almost two years, is now off to the University
of Washington to begin graduate work in geography. I wish them the
best of luck in the future.
The manuscripthas also benefited from the thoughtful and insightful
comments ofthree reviewers. Richard Bensel, Samih Farsoun, and Erik
Olin Wright all contributed their considerable expertise to the prepara
tion of the final text. Barbara Hanrahan, senior editor at the University
ofWisconsin Press, has supported and encouraged the project patiently,
since it was delayed for a year by my frequent forays into the turbulent
and chaotic morass ofMassachusetts state politics. Mycolleagues at the
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth have been notable for main
taining a combination of free inquiry, political expression, and social
activism that is still rare on American campuses. I must also express
my gratitude to the librarians and library staff who cheerfully lent their
assistance throughout this project: Shaleen Barnes, Jane Booth, Jo-Ann
Cooley, Paige Gibbs, Catherine Fortier-Barnes, Kate Jones-Randall,