Migdal, Joel (1988), Strong Societies and Weak States,
Available: Hard copy
Reading list MT09 Week 5, Ch 1.
(4)
Post war view of state building was that states had the potential to mould their societies through virtuous planning and meticulously laid out policies.
The state organisation became the focal point for hopes of achieving broad goals of human dignity, prosperity and equity.
Capabilities include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in determined ways.
(5)
Strong states have "high capabilities" to complete these tasks, where weak states are on the low end of the spectrum of capability.
Migdal takes Norlinger's definition of autonomy: states that can act on their own preferences and are not beholden to the most dominant social group
Strong state lit versus weak state lit, states almost totally impotent in the swirl of dizzying social changes
Krasner (1985): most developing countries have very weak domestic political institutions.
Constitutions and legislation often appear strong on paper but in practice the control is not actually exercised (Hammergren 1977)
(8)
Kohli (1987) India's state performance can be characterised overall by a failure to pursue the regime's own professed goals.
[carrying out some different goals might imply a strong/effective state that has been captured by a particular social group. similarly carrying out own goals ineffectively may imply weak but autonomous state]
