Economic Wealth Above All: A Postcolonial Analysis of State Capacity

 International Relations

Economic Wealth Above All

A Postcolonial Analysis of State Capacity

 

I. Introduction

 

Why does state capacity vary across countries? Once scholars define the ‘state’ as an entity, the question of its capacity is evident. Why is the state capable of exercising power over others within the territory? What holds the state together? These questions are often analysed by political scientists. Yet, the examination of state capacity – as infrastructural power – and more importantly, why it varies among states remains marginal. The existing literature focuses exclusively on the ‘why’ behind the existence of states, not behind the well-known differences among them and their capacities (Weber in Harbers, 2020; Szreter, 2005; Frymer, 2014; Tilly, 1985; Bates, 2001; Jefferson in Harbers, 2020). As we will see, this is a field that can and must be linked to colonialism., which lens therefore will be applied in this essay (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Hall, 2018). Although, it is not often argued, the existing literature is misleading on what shapes state capacity.  The extent of infrastructural power – in particular, the ability to begin developments – is dependent on nothing else but the state’s economy and capital (Dethier and Moore, 2012).

Hence, this essay will investigate the reason behind state capacity inequalities among states through a postcolonial lens that will allow us to connect the economic differences –originating from the colonial order – to the deviation in state capacity among countries. Bringing in the economic power of states in relation to their infrastructural power is reasonable, as infrastructure can only be funded and developed by states’ grants, what they have or lack.

 

 

II. Defining State Capacity

 

Here, the debated definition of the ‘state’ will not be analysed (Weber in Harbers, 2020; Szreter, 2005; Frymer, 2014; Tilly, 1985; Bates, 2001). Regardless the definition of the ‘state’, it has  – according to Mann –two types of power. Namely despotic power (that is the ‘the range of actions which the elite is empowered to undertake without routine, institutionalised negotiation with civil society groups’) and infrastructural power, which is state capacity (Mann in Harbers 2020). The latter – more important for this paper – is defined as ‘… the ability of a state to collect taxes, enforce law and order, and provide public goods…’ (Caplan, 2018).

Infrastructure is a must for the outreach of the power. If rules and law-enforcement are unable to reach every person within a territory, the power will be weak and unable to collect its income, that is, taxes (Harbers, 2020). Infrastructure is the key for economic growth and further infrastructural developments (Esfahani and Ramírez, 2003; Sanchez-Robles, 2007). Yet, for this process to begin, the state needs capital. Whether a state has the requisite funds or not is about the state’s economy, which is subject to the (still existing) historical colonial order (Dethier and Moore, 2012; Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Hall, 2018).

In short, state capacity and its level (or power) is shaped by what the ability to start infrastructure-building is formed by: a state’s ability to invest (Mann in Harbes, 2020; Dethier and Moore, 2012). Therefore, in the following sections, it will be argued that state capacity varies across nations due to the colonial differences in their wealth and economy, that still exist.

 

 

III. Case Study: Variation in State Capacity Among States, Analysing the Global North and South

  

Postcolonialism argues that colonialism is not (yet) over: colonial inequalities are still present, only the means have changed. Historically, we may appear to be in a ‘post’ colonial era, but its social, economic, cultural and political legacies persist. The Global South is still serving the Global North, as due to their disadvantaged history (where they had no opportunity to keep their resources for themselves and develop or gain wealth) they remain subordinated (Hall, 2018; Bockstette et al., 2002).

 

Many scholars argue various factors that can shape the state capacity, such as demographic size or composition (how many people are there in a given territory, how similar they are in culture and language, etc.) or geography (whether it suits infrastructure-building) (Hellen, 2009; Glover and Simon, 1975; Alesina et al. in Harbers, n.d.; Herbs in Vu, 2010:158; Fearon and Laitin in Harbers, n.d.; Albertus and Kaplan in Harbers, n.d.). Yet, we cannot understand economic differences – that lead to state capacity divergence – without taking the effects of colonialism into account. One example of the limitations of the argument on the significance of demography – when it comes to state capacity – is language. Looking at major Western powers such as China or Russia, we cannot find any confirmation on how the different dialectics across the country would disadvantage their leading economies (Syrowik, 2017; Silver, 2020). In developing countries, like Brazil, it does not make a distinction, the majority speaks Portuguese (Hudson, 1998: 131-131; Ethnologue, 2019).

Another example comes through when we look at geographic dissimilarities. There is hardly any supporting evidence on how mountains for instance, make infrastructural development more difficult. Why is it so in one mountainous country but not in another, for example China vis-á-vis Chile (World Population Review, 2020)? We cannot answer this question without taking the colonial order – and the differences created by that – into account. This is why we can only answer ‘why state capacity varies among countries’ through a postcolonial lens, that allows us to recognise the economic deviations in relation to the colonial order of the global market (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Hall, 2018).

 

 

IV. Explaining Differences in State Capacity

 

As we have discovered, all factors discussed by the existing literature turn us back to the economy: the ability of the state to connect to- and tax its people (Caplan, 2018). The example of geographic differences and demographic composition failed to explain the divergence between states in the Global North and the Global South: developing states also often have a common language and a flat landscape that would allow for more infrastructure. Yet, they lack the funds for development. They do so because of their colonial role in the world economy – outsourced by the North –, about which they cannot do much as they are competing for foreign-investment by offering the cheapest possible labour, cultivation and production (Chan and Ross, 2003). Consequently, scholars of state capacity must take a postcolonial lens for analysis, with a special focus on economic differences.

 

 

V. Conclusions and Looking Forward

 

In conclusion, scholars often argue for demographics – both, its density and composition – and geographics to be playing a significant part in the level of state capacity in a certain country (Hellen, 2009; Glover and Simon, 1975; Alesina et al. in Harbers, n.d.; Herbs in Vu, 2010:158; Fearon and Laitin in Harbers, n.d.; Albertus and Kaplan in Harbers, n.d.). Yet, these explanations fail to take the colonial order – that is still present today in the global economy – and the economic wealth of countries into account, whereas economy and a state’s capital for funding the early stages of infrastructural development should matter the most. The differences among nations in state capacity – that is, infrastructural power – can only be explained through a postcolonial lens and economic analysis (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Hall, 2018). As I have demonstrated, the map of contemporary inequalities in states’ infrastructure reflects the ‘old’ colonial world, where the Global South is ‘shining’ white on the map of railways, but the Global South remains black (Jefferson in Harbers, 2020). Why is it (still) the case? As we have seen, it is only postcolonialism that can give us a true answer.

Although, the postcolonial economic analysis of this paper has answered the ‘why’ behind the deviation in state capacity among states,  it remains for future scholars and  those in global governance to eliminate this colonial order from the world economy and allows all states to develop an economy that is not subordinated to foreign interests and grants taxes and therefore, state-income. That will allow colonial states to begin with their infrastructural developments (Dethier and Moore, 2012).

 

Bibliography

 

 

Bates, R. H. (2001) ‘4: State Formation in the Modern Era’ in Bates, R. H. Prosperity and Violence: The Political Economy of Development New York/London: W. W. Norton & Company pp. 70-83

Bockstette, V., Chanda, A. & Putterman, L. (2002) ‘States and Markets: The Advantage of an Early Start’ Journal of Economic Growth (7) Springer Link [online] pp. 347–369 Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020827801137#citeas (accessed on 08/10/2020)

Caplan, B. (2018) "State Capacity" is Sleight of Hand The Library of Economics and Liberty [online] Available at: https://www.econlib.org/state-capacity-is-sleight-of-hand/#:~:text=State%20capacity%20describes%20the%20ability,to%20rule%20(legal%20capacity (accessed on 06/10/2020)

Chan, A., & Ross, R. (2003) ‘Racing to the Bottom: International Trade without a Social Clause’ Third World Quarterly24(6) JSTOR [online] pp. 1011-1028 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993441 (accessed on 08/10/2020)

Dethier, J-J. and Moore, A. (2012) ‘Infrastructure in developing countries: An overview of some economic issues’University of Bonn Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 165 ResearchGate [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254389074_Infrastructure_in_developing_countries_An_overview_of_some_economic_issues(accessed on 08/10/2020)

Esfahani, H. S. and Ramírez, M. T. (2003) ‘Institutions, infrastructure, and economic growth’ Journal of Development Economics 70(2) ScienceDirect [online] pp. 443-477 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00105-0 (accessed on 06/10/2020)

Ethnologue (2019) What countries have the most languages? Ethnologue [online]  https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/countries-most-languages (accessed on 08/10/2020)

Frymer, P. (2014) ‘"A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours": Territorial Expansion, Land Policy, and U.S. State Formation’ Perspectives on Politics 12(1) JSTOR [online] pp. 119-144) Available at:https://www.jstor.org/stable/43281105 (accessed on 05/10/2020)

Glover, D., & Simon, J. (1975) ‘The Effect of Population Density on Infrastructure: The Case of Road Building’ Economic Development and Cultural Change 23(3) JSTOR [online] pp. 453-468 Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1153026 (accessed on 09/10/2020)

Hall, A. (2018) Critical Global Security Studies lecture University of York on 08/11/2018

Harbers, I. (2020) Specialisation Course International Relations lecture University of Amsterdam Canvas released on 05/10/2020

Harbers, I. (n.d.) Week 5 Developing State and Late State-Building Core Module Comparative Politics slides BSc Political Science University of Amsterdam

Heller, P. S. (2009) ‘People and Places: Can They Align to Bring Growth to Africa?’ Center for Global Development Essay [online] Available at: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/people-and-places-can-they-align-bring-growth-africa (accessed on 08/10/2020)

Hudson, R. A. (1998) Brazil: a country study 5^th ed. Washington, D.C: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress 

Peoples, C. and Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010) Critical security studies Abingdon: Routledge pp. 61-75

Sanchez-Robles, B. (1998) ‘Infrastructure Investment and Growth: Some Empirical Evidence’ Contemporary Economic Policy 16(1) EconPapers [online] pp. 98-108 Available at:https://econpapers.repec.org/article/blacoecpo/v_3a16_3ay_3a1998_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a98-108.htm (accessed on 06/10/2020)

Syrowik, T. (2017) Most Multilingual Countries In The World World Atlas [online] Available at: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-multilingual-countries-in-the-world.html (accessed on 08/10/2020)

Szreter, S.  (2005) ‘The Right of Registration: Development, Identity Registration, and Social Security—A Historical Perspective’ World Development 35(1) ScienceDirect [online] pp. 67-86 Available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.004 (accessed on 05/10/2020)

Silver, C. (2020) The Top 20 Economies in the World: Ranking the Richest Countries in the World Investopedia [online] Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/ (accessed on 07/10/2020)

Tilly, C. (1985) ‘5. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime’ in Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (eds.) Bringing the State Back In Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 169-191

Vu, T. (2010) ‘The State Through State Formation’ World Politics 62(1) JSTOR [online] pp. 148-175 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40646194 (accessed on 08/10/2020)

World Population Review (2020) Most Mountainous Countries 2020 World Population Review [online] Available at:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-mountainous-countries (accessed on 08/10/2020)

 

 

Appendix: Figures 1 & 4 from Jefferson, M. (1928) ‘The Civilizing Rails’ Economic Geography4(3) pp. 217-231

 

mentioned in Harbers, 2020

Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/140293 (accessed on 08/10/2020)