The State Flashcards
Weber’s main objecives
state digtates how force is used (monopo0ly) happens within a certain piece of land, within that space there is only one body that can use force.
communty, territoy, force, legimitacy
Migdal
if we think something is legit we dont need to be forced, it is implied that we know to follow the rules
state as a structure creates rules for all, will use force if necessary
if everyone follows rules then state doesnt have to use force, rules force us to have a certain way
Hobbes view of human nature, state of nature, and solution
need ordet bc we are”
vain
competitive
equal
State nature:
Solution:
leviathan: in order tos stop kilinng each ther and live a happy life, give up our entire bodiily autonomy to a group of people to have total authority over us.
Tilly’s theory if State Building
1)land was scarce and valiable more land meant more wealth
2) to gain money an dpiwer we need to invade neighbors land
3) to wage, aka, protect ourseles we need to build an amry
4) to raise armies we need loyaly and money form people.
5) ti fain legitimacy and money they offered rights sense of shared idenity
war made the state and state made the wa
Coercion and Capital
coercion: raise taxes gov spends on services for people
capital: maintinas peace, protect use force for sake of mnoey and for economy to continue
Defining and measuring legitimacy
legitimacy is how well citizens are willing to follow rules without coercion everyone is on the same level, none is above others.
Marien and Hooghe’s: Political Trust and Legal Permissiveness
legal persmissiveness is the willingness to do illegal things:
they found that the less politiical truat the more likey people were to do illegal things through self reports
How the use of force relates to legitimacy
if the state has to use force then it is not legitimate, force is implied alreayd but needed to be used.
State use of force
set of rules; define appropriate rules
surveillamce: monoitring rules being broken
only then use force to punish if rules are broken
if systems are done right then we should not really see force being used
threat of violence keeps in in check
relationship force and legitimacy?
does not really reflect how much crime there is, but it does seem to influence trust in police and legimitacy
Lowatcharin and
Stallmann’s study of decentralization and trust
hey looked at not the amound of police but the types of police, wanted to see does the amount of decentrilization result in less or more trust?
decentrilization: the more tiers there are in systems, the more decentrilized it is.
this relationship is conditional. only some times is this relationship present, under certain conditions.
only present in rucg countries. why? because rich countries tend to have more resources, better quality, better police because of the money they hold to make these systems high quality.
Hanson and Sigman’s: measure state capacity, including its distinct dimension
essential functions
distangle these functions how are they different
figure out how to measure each function
3 functions:
extraction : tsking resources from the people, raise revenue through taxes
coercion: pressure protect people, state uses forceful violence to keep people in check
administration: regularize things, develop policies to regulate peoples lives
Measuring extractive capacity
not the outcomes, but instead how are the expectations meeting the outcomes
Different definitions and measures of democracy
minimalist vs maxamalist:
min: meeting basic criteria, just elections
max: more complicated things to be considered a democracy, elections representation
practical vs institutional
practical: looks at how laws are being incorperated what is actually happening in pracice
institutional: rules set on paper, what rules do each country have
Measuring Democracy
minmalist: DDI, code 1 if all expectations are met then they get a 1
max: VDEM, the variety of democracy uses many and ALL different questions, hundreds of them
Institutional: polity score, counting democratic and autocratic institutions: just picks up the rules, surface level. but can be the best
practical: freedom house, ask experts to ask experts to see how laws play out in practice
Boese
Boese found that VDEM, polity, and Freedom house were top scores of democracy:
1) Polity
2) FH: are they allowed to do this? that?
3) VDEM- expert survery, hundreds of questions. So much more room for country to lose points
results:
Hellwig and Samuels on presidential vs. parliamentary systems.
how do we see accountability through pres and parl?
focus on incumbents people, rerunning, based on their passed experiences , they use the economy how did that politician impaxt it when they were in office?
Presidentialism vs parlimentarism:
pres: power divided by president and legislature
parl: prime minister comes form the legislature and stays in the legislature, NO separation of power but divided between power
results:
Anderson on fedeal vs unitary & Study
unitary: very centralized, authority and power is condensed.
federal: 2 or more governments have authority, it is easier in a unitary system to see who messed up
Anderson 2006, looks at fedearl and unitray systems impact voter ability to hold politicians accountable.
they still use incumbants based on economic performance
but rather than actual GDP, they use voter perception (survery data)
results: found that accountablity is stronger when there are stronger unitary systems, when there is clarity of who did what
Gallego and Unequal Turn out
Gallego wondered by there was unqual turn out, the people that were not turning out were the less socially privileged.
she had multitple areas:
ask wheather there are strong unions
is voting easier? balltot strucutre
voting easier? harder? aumomatic voting? or self registered.
number of parties
not voting, more costly? complusory votng
results: number of parties matter and compulsoty voting matte
Malapportionment
In a perfect apportioned systme no citizens votes counts more than otehrs, every vote countd equally but when that does not happen, it means it is malapportionment
(KHS) study of small-seat districts under proportional representation (PR).
Representational inequality around weird world
in SMD malapportionment reflect the number of voters per disitricts, but in PR systems there is variation
smaller parties are underrepresented when there are less seats
fewer seats: closer to a SMD system, advantage to the larger winning parties
results: few seat districts tend to be concentrated where radical right wing areas are winning, so thr very small seats are over represented in European parliament’s, few seat districts underrepresent small parties
Democratic Backsliding:
Haggard and Kaufman
populism is the thing that is driving backsliding.
3 weird casess that fit that definiotion
Hungary, 2011
Poland 2016
US 2016
“erosion from liberal democracy
Explaining Backsliding
polarization: people have major differences between themselves so therefore there is polarization
populism: identifying the other group as corrrupt creates a big divide claims to represemt the people as opposed to sepcific interest groups
new pop in the WEIRD world some populistn sat that democracy is corrupt
Grzymala-Busse how populists govern.
1- Undermine accountability
ex:change how judiciary rule govern
change rules of how power is used by the center
2 undermind informal norms: rewrite history
3 reamin popular
doing things to remain relevent
Variation in coercion
money spent on military, size of police
Measuring administratice capacity
do not focus on outcomes, is the outcomes meeting our expectations?
if state does not care then we cannot rely on looking at the outcomes
Defining Democratic Backsliding
1: democratic: at least 8 years free and fair elections
2: backsliding significant decline in libersl democraxy
3 consistnece: same patern in at least 2 additional data sets
Graham and Slokic
Q: Measured how people make decisions when voting.
found that people take alot of things into consideration when voting. So because of this they used
conjoined experiment: 2 different candidates to chose from.
R: 4 dimensions: demograhic, party, policies, democratic/ undemocratic. People rarely punish people for being undemocratic mostly punished by centrists and learners.
the more polarized the candidate the smaller the consequence.
party and ideology is the main concern.
