State Structure

In almost all of the literature on governance, the state is appealed to as a structural variable—a context in which actors are situated rather than an actor in his or her own terms. This structural emphasis upon the state is reflected in the centrality of the term state structure to the analysis of processes of governance. State structure refers to the institutional form that the state takes in a particular location at a particular point in time—from the responsibilities it takes on, to the functional differentiation of tasks between the institutions and organizations that together comprise it, and to its (often regulatory) relationship to both the market and the realm of civil society.

Somewhat more specifically, state structure might usefully be seen as one of a family of related terms, operating at different levels of abstraction or generality. At the highest level of abstraction, theorists of the state refer to the concept of state form—the most general type of state to which a particular state might be seen to belong. Thus, we might speak of the capitalist, feudal, or patriarchal form of the state. At an intermediary level of abstraction, state theorists refer to the concept of state regime. In so doing, they appeal to the existence of more or less stable stages in the development or evolution of a particular state form. Therefore, having identified a particular state as a capitalist form of the state, we might further categorize it as, say, a (Keynesian) welfare state or as a competition state. Thus, we are identifying the state regime to which it might be said to correspond. Finally, and at a somewhat lower level of abstraction, theorists of the state refer to state structure. Consequently, they focus on the specific institutional and organizational configuration of the state in a particular context at a particular point in time. Therefore, having identified the state in Sweden in 1970, for instance, as a capitalist state (its state form) and as a Keynesian welfare state (its state regime), we might focus in on the distinctive institutional and organizational features of this particular Keynesian welfare state at this particular point in time. Hence, we would be describing its state structure.

The appeal to the concept of state structure reminds us of the extent to which the autonomy and agency of political actors are both shaped and conditioned by the contexts within which they are exercised. As such, it sharpens the political analyst's purchase on the opportunities and constraints that political actors must negotiate in exercising power. Political analysts sensitive to the state as a structured domain of political action are less likely to see political actors in voluntarist terms—as free-willed subjects in almost complete control of their destiny and able to shape political realities in the image of their preferences and volitions. In contrast, state theorists tend to see the ability of actors to realize their intentions as conditional upon often-complex strategic choices made in densely structured institutional contexts that facilitate certain strategies while militating against others. [Page 930]As this suggests, the parameters of political possibility are, to a significant extent, delimited by state structure.

...