The state debate and the state-centered approach
In Marxist state theory of the 1960s and 1970s, instrumentalism, which saw the state as a tool of the ruling class, was set against the idea of relative autonomy, in which the state keeps some distance from individual capitalists in order to sustain capitalism. Pluralism likewise tended to treat the state as an arena for interest group competition. Comparing the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, Skocpol (1979) argued that the state is an actor with its own interests in international competition and domestic order. The volume by Evans and colleagues (1985), Bringing the State Back In, epitomized this state-centered approach and strongly influenced the development of historical institutionalism.
Autonomy, capacity and infrastructural power
Skocpol and Finegold (1982) explained why agricultural policy succeeded and industrial policy failed in the early New Deal by whether a skilled bureaucracy existed in each area: autonomous goals are of little use without the state capacity to implement them. Mann (1984) distinguished two kinds of state power: despotic power, which elites exercise at will without negotiating with society, and infrastructural power, the capacity to penetrate society and implement policy through taxation and administrative networks. Modern states are notable for weak despotic but very strong infrastructural power. Krasner (1984) compared this state-centered approach with other theories of the state.
Embedded autonomy and critiques
Comparing industrialization in South Korea, Brazil and India, Evans (1995) proposed the concept of embedded autonomy. Successful developmental states had capable bureaucrats autonomous enough to resist capture by particular interests, yet embedded in dense networks of information exchange with business. States with autonomy but no ties tend to become predatory, while those with ties but no autonomy are easily captured. Mitchell (1991), by contrast, argued that the boundary between state and society is itself unclear and produced as an effect, criticizing the view of the state as a unified, independent actor. Critics also note that ministries and factions within the state pursue different goals.
FAQ
- What is state autonomy in simple terms?
- The idea that the state is not just a tool following powerful classes or interest groups but an independent actor that can set and push its own goals.
- What is embedded autonomy?
- A state whose bureaucrats are independent enough to resist particular interests yet closely connected with business and society to exchange information. Evans saw it as the key to the success of developmental states such as South Korea.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A comparative-historical study treating the state as an autonomous actor.
- Skocpol, T., & Finegold, K. (1982). State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Political Science Quarterly, 97(2), 255–278. Explains New Deal outcomes through state capacity.
- Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185–213. Distinguishes despotic from infrastructural power.
- Krasner, S. D. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics. Comparative Politics, 16(2), 223–246. A review comparing approaches to the state.
- Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The landmark volume of the state-centered turn.
- Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 77–96. Questions the state–society boundary assumed by statist approaches.
- Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Develops embedded autonomy through cases including South Korea.