1. Is
the
state
still
in
control?
Journal
entry
01/10/2010
Steven
Lauwers
In
this
week’s
readings
and
in
the
lecture,
we
looked
at
how
the
state
changed
and
what
implications
this
has.
We
moved
from
what
we
define
as
a
Westphalian
state
to
a
modern
state,
but
while
there
were
clear
descriptions
about
what
the
state
needed
to
look
like
in
the
past,
do
we
have
any
idea
what
the
state
“should”
look
like
in
the
future?
To
very
briefly
summarize,
the
definition
of
a
Westphalian
state
said
that
sovereignty
of
the
state
is
based
on
territoriality
and
the
separation
of
the
domestic
and
international
sphere.
M.
Weber
then
later
defined
a
state
as
“a
compulsory
political
organization
with
continuous
operations
(…)
insofar
as
its
administrative
staff
successfully
upholds
the
claim
to
the
monopoly
of
the
legitimate
use
of
physical
force
in
the
enforcement
of
its
order”.
i
This
would
mean
that
social
order
can
only
be
obtained
through
an
ever-­‐present
threat
of
coerciveness.
ii
As
a
state
cannot
rely
only
on
this
‘monopoly
of
coerciveness’,
M.
Zürn
and
S.
Leibfried
identified
4
dimensions
a
state
has
to
be
active
in,
in
order
to
be
a
successful
modern
state:
resource,
law,
legitimacy
and
welfare.
iii
In
the
Golden
Age
1,
this
democratic
welfare
state
reached
its
height;
it
was
characterized
by
the
congruence
of
social
and
political
space,
which
allowed
an
almost
paternalistic
state
control.
After
the
Golden
Age,
important
shifts
took
place
in
these
different
dimensions,
causing
the
borders
of
societal
interactions,
and
other
activities
involving
new
actors,
to
lie
well
beyond
the
borders
of
any
nation-­‐state,
often
within
borders
of
other
nation-­‐states.
In
these
shifts,
the
trend
of
globalization
is
perceived
as
predominant,
but
one
should
keep
in
mind
that
society
is
moving
in
different
directions.
Professor
Dr
Jachtenfuchs
therefore
prefered
to
refer
to
this
as
denationalization,
rather
than
only
‘globalization’,
which
he
sees
as
only
one
part
of
how
the
state
is
changing.
(…)
Does
this
shift
in
dimensions,
and
away
from
what
we
defined
as
a
Westphalian
state,
means
a
loss
of
control?
I
wouldn’t
say
so.
The
modern
state
needed
to
delegate
many
of
its
activities
to
new
actors,
which
Salamon
describes
as
third
party
governanceiv,
to
be
able
to
manage
these
shifts.
Delegating
powers
assumes
a
certain
dependence
of
the
1
The
Golden
Age
refers
to
the
most
prosperous
period
for
the
democratic
welfare-­‐state’s
between
the
1960s
and
the
1970s.
The
term
was
popularized
by
the
Eric
J.
Hobsbawm
and
Jürgen
Habermas.

2. actors
and
control
of
the
principal,
the
state.
What
we
can
see
though
is
that
the
international
community
is
exercising
increasing
control
on
the
state.
In
his
lecture,
Professor
Dr
Jachtenfuchs
said
that
“you
are
a
state
if
the
international
community
accepts
you
as
one.”
Where
the
modern
state
might
be
one
of
third
party
governance,
the
state
has
increasingly
become
an
actor
itself:
of
and
in
the
international
community.
This
implies
that
control
now
is
exercised
on
two
levels,
the
state-­‐level
and
the
international
level.
i
Weber
M.
(1978
(1922)):
Economy
and
Society.
An
Outline
of
Interpretative
Sociology.
p.
54
ii
North
D.
C
et
al
(2006).
A
Conceptual
Framework
for
Interpreting
Recorded
Human
History.
p.
10
iii
Zürn,
M.,
Leibfried,
S.
(2005).
Reconfiguring
the
National
Constellation.
p.
2.
iv
Salamon,
L.
M.
(2002):
The
New
Governance
and
the
Tools
of
Public
Action:
An
Introduction,
p.
7