State formation is the process of the development of a centralized government

structure in a situation where one did not exist prior to its development. State
formation has been a study of many disciplines of the social sciences for a
number of years, so much so that Jonathan Haas writes that "One of the favorite
pastimes of social scientists over the course of the past century has been to
theorize about the evolution of the world's great civilizations."[1] The study of
state formation is divided generally into either the study of early states (those
that developed in stateless societies) or the study of modern states (particularly
of the form that developed in Europe in the 1600s and spread around the world).
A number of different theories explain the development of early states and
modern states, and many of the academic debates remain prominent in different
fields of study.[2]

Contents

1 The state
2 Explaining early states and explaining modern states
2.1 Early state formation
2.2 Modern state formation
3 Theories about early state development
3.1 Voluntary theories
3.2 Conflict theories
3.3 Other theories
3.4 Discredited theories
4 Theories about modern state development
4.1 Warfare theories
4.2 Feudal crisis theories
4.3 Cultural theories
4.4 Outside Europe
5 See also
6 Notes
7 Bibliography
8 Further reading

The state
Main article: State (polity)

There is no clear consensus on the defining characteristics of a state and the

definition can vary significantly based upon the focus of the particular study.[3] In
general though, for studies of state formation, the state is considered to be a
territorially bound political unit with centralized institutions for the administration
of governance, as distinct from tribes or units without centralized institutions.[4]

According to Painter & Jeffrey, there are 5 distinctive features of the modern
state. 1) they are ordered by precise boundaries with administrative control
across the whole. 2) they occupy large territories with control given to organized
institutions. 3) they have to have a capital and be based somewhere with
symbols that embody state power. 4) allows for state organizations to monitor,
govern and control its population through police surveillance, electronic
surveillance and record keeping by the 'state' 5) monitoring has increased over
time.[5]
Explaining early states and explaining modern states

Theories of state formation have two distinct focuses, depending largely on the
field of study:

the early transition in human society from tribal communities into larger
political organizations. Studies of this topic, often in anthropology, explore the
initial development of basic administrative structures in areas where states
developed from stateless societies.[6] Although state formation was an active
research agenda in anthropology and archaeology until the 1980s, some of the
effort has changed to focus not on why these states formed but on how they
operated.[7]
in contrast, studies in political science and in sociology have focused
significantly on the formation of the modern state.[8]

Early state formation

List of Primary States[9] Area
Egypt Abydos

3000 BCE

Mesopotamia

Uruk[10]

First State

3000 BCE

Approximate Year

Indus River Valley Harappa

2000 BCE

North China Shang Dynasty[11]

Peru

1800 BCE

Moche, Tiwanaku, and Wari[12] 300-500 CE

Mesoamerica

Monte Albn[13]

100 BCE

Studies of early state formation focus on "primary states" (of which there may be
few) and on early states (which formed in different parts of the world throughout
history).

Primary states are defined by Anthropologists Spencer & Redmond as those

states that developed in a context with no contact or prior development of a
state in the area. These are those situations where states developed for the first
time in that social environment.[9] The exact number of cases which qualify as
primary states is not clearly known because of limited information about political
organization before the development of writing in many places;[10] However, the
list typically includes the first states to develop in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus
river valley, North China, Peru, and Mesoamerica.[9] Cohen identifies six zones of
independent state development:[14]

a connected zone including Europe, North Africa, the Nile river valley, East and
South Asia
Mesoamerica
Peru
West Africa
East Africa
Polynesia

Studies on the formation of early states tend to focus on processes that create
and institutionalize a state in a situation where a state did not exist before.
Examples of early states which developed in interaction with other states include
the Aegean Bronze Age Greek civilizations and the Malagasy civilization in
Madagascar.[15] Unlike primary state formation, early state formation does not
require the creation of the first state in that cultural context or development
autonomously, independently from state development nearby. Early state
formation causation can thus include borrowing, imposition, and other forms of
interaction with already existing states.[16]
Modern state formation

Theories on the formation of modern states focus on the processes that support
the development of modern states, particularly those that formed in latemedieval Europe and then spread around the world with colonialism. Starting in
the 1940s and 1950s, with decolonization processes underway, attention began
to focus on the formation and construction of modern states with significant
bureaucracies, ability to tax, and territorial sovereignty around the world.[17][18]
However, some scholars hold that the modern state model formed in other parts
of the world prior to colonialism, but that colonial structures replaced it.[19]
Theories about early state development

There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state
formation that seek generalizations to explain why the state developed in some
places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful
and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own.[9]
Voluntary theories
Uruk one of the prime sites for research into early state formation

Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form
states as a result of some shared rational interest.[20] The theories largely focus
on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational
pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. The argument is that such
pressures result in integrative pressure for rational people to unify and create a
state.[21] Much of the social contract philosophical traditional proposed a
voluntary theory for state formation.[22]

One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the
hydraulic hypothesis, which contends that the state was a result of the need to
build and maintain large-scale irrigation projects.[23] The theory was most
significantly detailed Karl August Wittfogel's argument that, in arid environments,
farmers would be confronted by the production limits of small-scale irrigation.
Eventually different agricultural producers would join together in response to
population pressure and the arid environment, to create a state apparatus that
could build and maintain large irrigation projects.[24]

In addition to this, is what Carneiro calls the automatic hypothesis, which

contends that the development of agriculture easily produces conditions
necessary for the development of a state. With surplus food stocks created by
agricultural development, creation of distinct worker classes and a division of
labor would automatically trigger creation of the state form.[20]

A third voluntary hypothesis, particularly common with some explanations of

early state development, is that long distance trade networks created an impetus
for states to develop at key locations: such as ports or oases. For example, the
increased trade in the 1500s may have been a key to state formation in West
African states such as Whydah, Dahomey, and the Benin Empire.[23]
Conflict theories

Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some

population over another population as key to the formation of states.[24] In
contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not
voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits, but that states form due
to some form of oppression by one group over others. A number of different
theories rely on conflict, dominance, or oppression as a causal process or as a
necessary mechanism within certain conditions and they may borrow from other
approaches. In general the theories highlight: economic stratification, conquest of
other peoples, conflict in circumscribed areas, and the neoevolutionary growth of
bureaucracy.
Panorama of Monte Albn in present-day Mexico, seen from the South Platform.
Archeologists often times look for evidence of such "large-scale construction
projects, trade networks, and religious systems" to identify early states.[25]

Economic stratification

Friedrich Engels articulated one of the earliest theories of the state based on
anthropological evidence in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State (1884).[26] The theory of Engels developed from study of Ancient Society
(1877) by Lewis H. Morgan and from the sketches of this work by Karl Marx on the
Asiatic mode of production.[27] Engels argues that the state developed as a
result of the need to protect private property. The theory contended that surplus
production as a result of the development of agriculture created a division and
specialization of labor: leading to classes who worked the land and to those who
could devote time to other tasks. Class antagonism and the need to secure the
private property of those living on the surplus production produced by
agriculturalists resulted in the creation of the state.[28]

The anthropologist Morton Fried (1923-1986) further developed this

approach, positing social stratification as the primary dynamic underlying the
development of the state.[29]

Conquest theories

Similar to the economic stratification theories, the conquest theory contends

that a single city establishes a state in order to control other tribes or settlements
it has conquered. The theory has its roots in the work of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
and of Jean Bodin (15301596), but it was first organized around anthropological
evidence by Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943).[30][31] Oppenheimer argues that
the state was created to cement inequality between peoples that resulted from
conquest.[32]

Carneiro's circumscription theory

The mountain Huayna Picchu overlooks the ruins of Machu Picchu. The Andes
mountains circumscribed much of the region.

Main article: Carneiro's circumscription theory

Robert Carneiro developed a theory (1970)[33] aiming to provide a more

nuanced understanding of state formation by accounting for the fact that many
factors (surplus agriculture, warfare, irrigation, conquest, etc.) did not produce
states in all situations. He concluded that while population pressure and warfare
were mechanisms of state formation, they only created states in geographic
regions circumscribed, or walled off from the surrounding area.[34] Geographic
barriers (or in some cases barriers created by nomadic raiders or by rival
societies) create limitations on the ability of the people to deal with production
shortfalls, and the result is that warfare results in state creation.[29] In situations
of unlimited agricultural land (like the Amazon or the Eastern United States),
Carneiro believes that the pressures did not exist and so warfare allowed people
to move elsewhere and thus did not spur creation of a state.[35]

Neoevolutionary theories

Further information: Neoevolutionism

A number of different theories, sometimes connected with some of the

processes above, explain state formation in terms of the evolution of leadership
systems. This argument sees human society as evolving from tribes or chiefdoms

into states through a gradual process of transformation that lets a small group
hierarchically structure society and maintain order through appropriation of
symbols of power.[36] Groups that gained power in tribal society gradually
worked towards building the hierarchy and segmentation that created the state.
[37]

Elman Service (1915-1996) proposed that, unlike in economic stratification

theories, the state largely creates stratification in society rather than being
created to defend that stratification.[38] Bureaucracy evolves to support the
leadership structure in tribes and uses religious hierarchy and economic
stratification as a means to further increase its power.[39] Warfare may play a
key role in the situation, because it allows leaders to distribute benefits in ways
that serve their interests, however it is a constant that feeds the system rather
than an autonomous factor.[40] Similarly, anthropologist Henry T. Wright argues
(2006) that competitive and conflictual environments produce political
experimentation leading to the development of the state. As opposed to theories
that the state develops through chance or tinkering, experimentation involves a
more directed process where tribal leaders learn from organization forms of the
past and from the outcomes they produced.[41]

Other theories

Other aspects are highlighted in different theories as of contributing importance.

It is sometimes claimed that technological development, religious development,
or socialization of members are crucial to state development. However, most of
these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological analysis.[42] In
addition to conquest, some theories contend that the need for defense from
military conquest or the military organization to conquer other peoples is the key
aspect leading to state formation.[23]
Discredited theories

Some theories proposed in the 1800s and early 1900s have since been largely
discredited by anthropologists. These include theories that early state formation
resulted from racial superiority, historical accident, or from a shared
consciousness of the people.[20] Similarly, Social Darwinism perspectives
prominent in the work of Walter Bagehot maintained that the state form
developed as a result of the best leaders and organized societies gradually
gaining power until the state formed. These are not considered sufficient causes
in recent scholarship.[30]
Theories about modern state development

In the medieval period (500-1400 CE) in Europe, there were a variety of authority
forms throughout the region. These included feudal lords, empires, religious
authorities, free cities, and other authorities.[43] Often dated to the 1648 Peace
of Westphalia, there began to be the development in Europe of modern states
with large-scale capacity for taxation, coercive control of their populations, and
advanced bureaucracies.[44] The state became prominent in Europe over the
next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the
world via the colonial and international pressures of the 1800s and 1900s.[45]
Other modern states developed in Africa and Asia prior to colonialism, but were
largely displaced by colonial rule.[46]

Political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists began studying the state

formation processes in Europe and elsewhere in the 1600sbeginning
significantly with Max Weber. However, state formation became a primary
interest in the 1970s. The question was often framed as a contest between state
forces and society forces and the study of how the state became prominent over
particular societies.[47] A number of theories developed regarding state
development in Europe. Other theories focused on the creation of states in late
colonial and post-colonial societies.[48] The lessons from these studies of the
formation of states in the modern period are often used in theories about Statebuilding. Other theories contend that the state in Europe was constructed in
connection with peoples from outside Europe and that focusing on state
formation in Europe as a foundation for study silences the diverse history of state
formation.[49]
Warfare theories
A woodcut of the Defenestrations of Prague in 1618which began the Thirty
Years' War and ended with the Peace of Westphalia that started the recognition of
the modern state.

Two related theories are based on military development and warfare, and the role
that these forces played in state formation. Charles Tilly developed an argument
that the state developed largely as a result of "state-makers" who sought to
increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they
could continue fighting wars.[43] In the constant warfare of the centuries in
Europe, coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder,
warlords had to find ways to finance war and control territory more effectively.
The modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation
structures, the coercive structure to implement that taxation, and finally the
guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of the population
to agree.[50]

Michael Roberts and Geoffrey Parker, in contrast, finds that the primary causal
factor was not the "state-makers" themselves, but simply the military revolutions

that allowed development of larger armies.[51] The argument is that with the
expanded state of warfare, the state became the only administrative unit that
could endure in the constant warfare in the Europe of this period, because only it
could develop large enough armies.[52] This viewthat the modern state
replaced chaos and general violence with internal disciplinary structureshas
been challenged as ethnocentric, and ignoring the violence of modern states.[53]
Feudal crisis theories

Another argument contends that the state developed out of economic and social
crises that were prominent in late-medieval Europe. Religious wars between
Catholics and Protestants, and the involvement of leaders in the domains of other
leaders under religious reasons was the primary problem dealt with in the Peace
of Westphalia.[44] In addition, Marxist theory contends that the economic crisis of
feudalism forced the aristocracy to adapt various centralized forms of
organization so they could retain economic power, and this resulted in the
formation of the modern state.[54]
Cultural theories

Some scholarship, linked to wider debates in Anthropology, has increasingly

emphasized the state as a primarily cultural artifact, and focuses on how
symbolism plays a primary role in state formation.[55] Most explicitly, some
studies emphasize how the creation of national identification and citizenship were
crucial to state formation. The state then is not simply a military or economic
authority, but also includes cultural components creating consent by people by
giving them rights and shared belonging.[48]
Outside Europe

Modern states were created without European influence in some parts of Africa,
Latin America, and elsewhere before colonialism.[56] However, much of attention
has focused on how states developed in Africa in the situation of post-colonial
state formation.[57] Although warfare is primary in many theories of state
formation in Europe, with the development of the international norm of noninterventionism this process of state formation has decreased in relevance[58]
and other processes of state formation have become prominent outside Europe
(including colonial imposition, assimilation, borrowing, and some internal political
processes).[57]

One explicit theory of the expansion of the state formation outside Europe is John
W. Meyer's World Society Theory, which contends that the state form was part of
a diffusion from Europe, institutionalized in the United Nations, and gradually the
nation-state became the basis for both those in power and those challenging

power.[59] In addition, since the first modern states (the United Kingdom, United
States, and France) took over significant empires in much of the rest of the world,
it is sometimes argued that they set the institutional starts and that future
developments were either imposed or copied from them because they were seen
as successful.[59]
See also

Civil Society
Sovereignty
Global governance
State of nature