A post-modern state?
Many philosophers have viewed the state as the basic unit of geopolitical relations. Some (most notably Hegel and his followers) have gone so far as to personify states and their relations. Lately I wonder, is this notion of the state just some modernists construct or does it have some deeper significance. Are we moving towards a post-modern state?
Robert Cooper of Demos thinks we are. In this piece, a framework for a post-modern state is laid out. Jeremy Rifkin has a different angle, but his "New European Dream" shares a lot of the notions mentioned by Demos. Is the state slowly being redefined?
I read the Rifkin piece and the Cooper piece (but If missed, or misinterpreted something please say so). The impression from Cooper’s Demos is that we are moving to, or are already in, a postmodern state. In this state the concept of a nation state as center of ‘all’ is fading.. Let me give my view on the basis of knowledge from the accession of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) into the EU.
While initially most governments were articulating the common destiny and common fate of the EU and CEECs, these idealistic arguments were soon replaced by interest-driven arguments. Because during he accession negotiations the best NATIONAL deals were struck. And I don’t mean the CEECs, but the current ‘united’ European states were all trying to win. On the other side one could say that the overall costs of accession always exceeds the benefits for current member states, which is probably true. But then the question is valid: what are costs (and benefits)? Is security a benefit, because then the benefit of a stable neighboring country for Germany (Poland) is definitely a Pro.
Then let’s swiftly review day-to-day EU politics. The biggest and important actor is the Council of Ministers (different for each policy area). Here, effectively national states pulling the strings, and national parliaments controlling them. This is the biggest legitimating of the existence of the EU (Scharpf (1998) has called this input-oriented legitimation). So things look pale when calling the EU a postmodern state. Or doesn’t it? Because Scharpf also gives another form of legitimacy present in the EU today: output-oriented legitimacy. Its simply more effective to produce at a larger scale, to have homogeneous legislation and cooperation at EU level. This phenomenon has caused us to look over our borders and work together (not just this: also technological advancements and security problems). Here, in my view, we have found our real postmodern society. States are not declining. They are as important as ever in the EU, they still have all the power.
There is much more to discuss. The idea for example of Multi-level Governance: in short that a polis (county or EU in this case) has different actors at different level, here we talk about central regional or local governments but also unions, interest groups etc. These actors participate in this multi level model to the decision making in the EU. An example could be: the Committee of the Regions (sadly they have practically no power) who is consulted in regional affairs. But this looks all very nice in theory (I could make a comparison to Cooper’s Demos: overlapping responsibilities of governments, international institutions and private sector (p 41)) but is in reality very limited.
The reality (still) is that national governments control funds coming from the EU, almost nowhere regional governments have a direct link to EU institutions… So is the concept of nation state fading?: I think not. But is it becoming more oriented towards the EU and the international area, of course! But rationalism remains the primary motive here (self-interest)
Kim - 06 11 04
I’d like to discuss this some more at a later time, in the mean time, Salon.com has another article on this…
rikkert () (URL) - 17 11 04
No trackbacks:
Trackback link:
Posted by in Old Stuff @ 04 11 04 | two comments / No trackbacks
