Coercion, Capital, and European States, A.D. 990-1992

1. States are Coercion-Wielding Organizations Shaped by Capital and War

Let us define states as coercion-wielding organizations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories.

Defining the state. States are fundamentally organizations that monopolize the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. This definition encompasses a wide array of historical forms, from city-states and empires to the modern national state, but excludes less organized power structures like tribes. The emergence of states around 6000 BC coincided with the rise of cities, establishing a long-standing, often contentious, interdependence between political power and economic centers.

Interplay of forces. The book argues that the development of states is driven by two primary forces: coercion and capital.

• Coercion: The accumulation and concentration of military means (armies, weapons, police) lead to the formation and growth of states.
• Capital: The accumulation and concentration of mobile resources (money, goods, credit) foster urban growth and empower capitalists.
  These two forces interact dynamically, with the organization of coercion (states) drawing on and influencing the organization of capital (cities), and vice versa.

War's central role. Throughout European history, war and preparation for war have been the most powerful engines of state formation and transformation. Rulers constantly sought to expand their control over territory and resources, leading to incessant conflict. This relentless competition compelled states to develop more effective means of extracting resources and organizing military force, inadvertently shaping their internal structures and their relationships with their populations.

2. Europe's Diverse State Forms Converged on the National State

What accounts for the great variation over time and space in the kinds of states that have prevailed in Europe since AD 990, and why did European states eventually converge on different variants of the national state?

Initial fragmentation. Around 990 AD, Europe was a patchwork of highly fragmented sovereignties, including:

• Loose-knit empires (e.g., Byzantine, Saxon, early Polish/Hungarian)
• Hundreds of city-states and bishoprics (e.g., in Italy, Flanders)
• Viking-dominated coastal areas and kingdoms (e.g., Danish empire in British Isles)
  These entities varied greatly in size, internal organization, and the extent of their control over their populations.

Long-term consolidation. Over the next millennium, Europe experienced a dramatic consolidation of political power. By 1490, larger territorial states began to emerge, though fragmented sovereignty still characterized much of the continent. By 1990, the map was dominated by a mere 25-28 national states, most with substantial territories and centralized control. This process was not linear but involved the rise and fall of many state forms.

The national state's triumph. The eventual convergence on the national state form was not predetermined. City-states, empires, and federations were viable for centuries. However, the increasing scale and cost of warfare, particularly after 1500, gave a decisive advantage to states that could mobilize large, durable military forces from their own populations and finance them through commercialized economies. These "national states" set the terms of war and became the predominant model.

3. Warfare's Escalating Costs Drove State Centralization and Extraction

Over the millennium as a whole, war has been the dominant activity of European states.

War's relentless pressure. European states were almost constantly at war, with major international conflicts starting every few years for centuries. This incessant warfare, while becoming less frequent among great powers over time, grew dramatically in scale and destructiveness, especially in the 20th century. The sheer volume of great power battle deaths soared from 9,400 per year in the 16th century to 290,000 in the 20th century.

Financial demands. The escalating costs of war forced rulers to find new ways to finance their military endeavors. This led to:

• Increased taxation: From tribute and rents to more sophisticated taxes on flows (customs, excise) and stocks (property), and eventually income.
• Public debt: States began borrowing heavily from capitalists, securing loans against future revenues.
• Fiscal apparatus: The need to collect and manage these funds led to the creation of permanent treasuries, tax bureaus, and other civilian administrative structures.

Military evolution. The organization of military force itself underwent profound transformations:

• Patrimonialism (up to 15th century): Rulers relied on feudal levies, urban militias, and personal retainers.
• Brokerage (1400-1700): Mercenary forces, recruited by military entrepreneurs, predominated, requiring significant cash payments.
• Nationalization (1700-1850): States created mass armies and navies drawn from their own populations, absorbing military forces directly into state administration.
• Specialization (1850-present): Military became a specialized branch of government, with clear divisions between army and police, and civilian oversight.

4. Bargaining for War Resources Forged Citizen Rights and State Structures

The core of what we now call “citizenship,” indeed, consists of multiple bargains hammered out by rulers and ruled in the course of their struggles over the means of state action, especially the making of war.

Extraction and resistance. As rulers sought to extract resources (men, money, supplies) for war, they inevitably impinged on the interests of their subjects. This often led to resistance, ranging from covert evasion and foot-dragging to open rebellion. The resources demanded were typically embedded in existing social relations and commitments, making their seizure contentious.

The necessity of bargaining. Faced with resistance, rulers were compelled to bargain with various social classes and powerholders. This bargaining took many forms:

• Negotiating with parliaments and assemblies (e.g., English Parliament, Catalan Corts)
• Granting privileges and exemptions to urban oligarchies or landlords in exchange for loans or military service
• Regularizing taxation in return for more willing payment
  These negotiations, whether explicit or implicit, created or confirmed individual and collective claims on the state, establishing rights and obligations that formed the bedrock of citizenship.

Class structure's imprint. The class structure of the subject population significantly influenced the nature of these bargains and the resulting state organization.

• Capital-intensive regions: Rulers bargained with powerful urban capitalists, leading to states with strong representative institutions and efficient, less intrusive fiscal systems.
• Coercion-intensive regions: Rulers relied on armed landlords, granting them extensive local power over peasants in exchange for military support, resulting in more coercive and less representative states.
  The continuous interplay of state demands and popular resistance, mediated by class power, shaped the diverse institutional landscapes of European states.

5. The French Revolution Accelerated the Shift to Direct Rule and Nationalism

French actions from 1789 to 1815 forwarded the general European transition from indirect to direct rule in two ways: by providing a model of centralized government that other states emulated, and by imposing variants of that model wherever France conquered.

From indirect to direct rule. Before the 18th century, most large European states governed indirectly, relying on local intermediaries like nobles, clergy, and urban oligarchies. These intermediaries often enjoyed significant autonomy and profited from their delegated power. However, the escalating demands of warfare, particularly for manpower, incentivized rulers to bypass these intermediaries and reach directly into communities and households.

Revolutionary transformation. The French Revolution dramatically accelerated this transition.

• Elimination of intermediaries: Revolutionaries swept away feudal dues, church privileges, and venal offices, dismantling the old system of indirect rule.
• Centralized administration: A new, uniform hierarchy of departments, districts, and communes was established, staffed by bourgeois officials directly accountable to the central government.
• Mass mobilization: The levée en masse (mass conscription) and expanded taxation required unprecedented state penetration into daily life.
  This created one of the first systems of direct rule in a large state, transforming the relationship between citizens and the state.

Exporting the model. Napoleon's conquests spread this model of centralized, direct rule across much of Europe. Even states that resisted France, like Prussia, adopted similar reforms to mobilize their populations more effectively. This revolutionary shift, though often met with fierce resistance and counter-revolution, laid the groundwork for the modern, omnipresent state, fostering both popular identification with the state (nationalism) and demands for greater state intervention in social and economic life.

6. Three Distinct Paths Shaped European State Formation: Coercion, Capital, and Combined

The great distinctions separated coercion-intensive, capital-intensive, and capitalized-coercion trajectories of state formation.

Coercion-intensive path. In regions with sparse cities and limited capital, rulers relied heavily on direct coercion.

• Characteristics: Strong alliances between warmaking princes and armed landlords, extensive concessions of governmental power to nobles, joint exploitation of the peasantry (e.g., serfdom), and restricted scope for merchant capital.
• Examples: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Brandenburg-Prussia, and to some extent, Sicily and Castile.
• Outcome: Bulky, centralized states that often struggled with internal magnates and were starved for liquid capital, leading to reliance on land grants for military service.

Capital-intensive path. In regions with dense urban networks and abundant capital, states formed in close collaboration with powerful capitalists.

• Characteristics: Commercial oligarchies dominated state policy, efficient taxation on trade and credit, compact state structures with minimal bureaucracy, and strong emphasis on maritime enterprise and commercial protection.
• Examples: Venice, Genoa, Dubrovnik, the Dutch Republic.
• Outcome: Prosperous, efficient states that could mobilize resources rapidly through borrowing and trade, but were vulnerable to large land-based armies once warfare scaled up.

Capitalized-coercion path. This intermediate path involved a more even balance and tighter connection between concentrated capital and coercion.

• Characteristics: Rulers balanced the interests of landlords and merchants, drawing revenues from both land and trade. This often involved intense class struggle but ultimately led to a modus vivendi.
• Examples: France and England.
• Outcome: Full-fledged national states that developed massive military forces by leveraging both rural populations and urban capital, eventually becoming dominant in Europe and setting the standard for state formation.

7. The European State System, Forged by War, Expanded to Dominate the World

The dominant political fact of the last thousand years is the formation and extension of a European state system consisting largely of national states rather than empires, city-states, or other variants of coercive power.

Emergence of a system. By the 15th century, European states began forming an interconnected system characterized by:

• Regular diplomacy: Resident ambassadors and treaties became common.
• Formal alliances: States formed coalitions to balance power and pursue dynastic or national interests.
• Peace settlements: Major wars concluded with multilateral conferences (e.g., Westphalia, Utrecht, Vienna) that redrew boundaries and recognized new states.
  This system, initially centered in Italy, gradually expanded to include all of Europe, with France and the Habsburgs often at its core.

Global reach. This European state system did not remain confined to the continent. Through colonization, conquest, and commercial penetration, European powers extended their influence worldwide.

• Colonial empires: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, and France built vast overseas empires, extracting resources and imposing European models of governance.
• Global conflicts: Wars among European powers increasingly involved overseas territories, with peace settlements often including colonial realignments.
  By the 20th century, the European-derived state system encompassed virtually the entire globe, with the League of Nations and later the United Nations formalizing its universal membership.

National state dominance. The triumph of the national state form within Europe was crucial for its global spread. States that effectively combined large populations (for armies) with access to capital (for finance) gained a decisive military advantage. These national states then acted to reproduce their own form globally, often by imposing it on colonies or influencing the development of newly independent nations.

8. Post-World War II, Global State Formation Diverged from Europe's Civilianization

The effort to put those suppositions to the test in the construction of “modern” African, Asian, Latin American, or Middle Eastern states immediately raised doubts.

Flawed assumptions. Early "political development" theories assumed that Third World states would follow a linear path mirroring Western European experience, culminating in stable, civilian-controlled democracies. This view proved inadequate due to:

• Diverse trajectories: The vast heterogeneity of non-Western states (e.g., ancient China vs. new Vanuatu).
• External imposition: Many new states were formed as former colonies, inheriting Western organizational structures but lacking organic ties to their populations.
• Superpower influence: Cold War competition led to external military aid and political interference, distorting internal state development.

Formal vs. functional convergence. While the formal organizational structures of states worldwide have converged (e.g., courts, bureaucracies, armies), their internal operations and relations with citizens often differ dramatically. The European path involved a gradual "civilianization" of government, where military power became subordinate to civilian institutions through bargaining and the growth of civilian bureaucracies.

The "external" nature of modern state formation. Contemporary state formation is profoundly "external," meaning that international forces play a much larger role than in early European history.

• Colonial legacy: States inherited administrative and military structures from their colonizers.
• Great power influence: Superpowers actively shaped the institutions and policies of client states.
• International organizations: Bodies like the UN ratify and sustain states, often imposing external models.
  This external shaping often bypasses the internal bargaining processes that led to civilian control and citizen rights in Europe.

9. External Influence and Aid Fuel Militarization in Contemporary Third World States

In those states, military organizations grew in size, strength, and efficacy while other organizations stood still or withered.

Militarization, not civilianization. Contrary to the European trend, many post-WWII Third World states have experienced increased militarization.

• Military control: A significant proportion (around 40% in the 1980s) of these states are under military control, with military officers holding key political leadership, martial law, or extrajudicial authority.
• Coups d'état: The frequency of military coups rose dramatically after WWII, especially in Africa, where new states were particularly vulnerable.
• State violence: Military-controlled states are significantly more likely to employ violence against their own citizens and restrict political rights.

Insulation from accountability. Several factors contribute to this militarization:

• Commodity revenues: States generating income from selling commodities (e.g., oil) on international markets can finance their militaries without extensive domestic taxation, reducing their need to bargain with citizens.
• Foreign military aid: Great powers, especially during the Cold War, provided arms, training, and advice to Third World militaries, bolstering their strength relative to civilian institutions.
• Lack of internal bargaining: Without the necessity of extracting resources from a broad base of citizens, the military can operate with less accountability to civilian populations or representative bodies.

Consequences of external support. This external support allows military organizations to grow powerful and autonomous, often diverting talent from civilian sectors. The military becomes an attractive path for ambitious individuals in capital-poor environments. This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing cycle where military strength leads to political power, which in turn secures more external aid and internal resources, further entrenching military rule.

10. The World Faces a Critical Juncture: Militarization vs. Civilian Control

The only real answer is to turn the immense power of national states away from war and toward the creation of justice, personal security, and democracy.

A worrying trend. The rise of military power in many Third World states is not a natural, passing phase of state formation. It represents a divergence from the European path of civilianization, with significant implications for human rights, political representation, and global stability. The world is witnessing a proliferation of non-nuclear wars, often civil conflicts, where state violence against citizens is a common feature.

The Cold War's legacy. The bipolar confrontation between the US and USSR after WWII intensified competition for global allegiance, leading to extensive military aid and intervention in Third World states. This external support often insulated military regimes from internal pressures for civilian accountability. The recent dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War present an unparalleled opportunity for peaceful reconstruction.

Paths to civilianization. To reverse the trend of militarization, several conditions are crucial:

• Reduced great power military competition: Less external pressure to arm Third World states.
• Insulation from external military influence: States should develop their own internal resource bases for military funding, fostering accountability.
• Promotion of internal bargaining: Strengthening civilian institutions and encouraging negotiations between the state and its citizens over resources and rights.
• Economic development: Creating viable civilian career alternatives to military service and fostering broad-based economic growth.

The enduring challenge. The European experience shows that states are not static entities but products of continuous struggle and adaptation. While the national state has triumphed globally, its current manifestations, particularly in the Third World, highlight the fragility of civilian control and the persistent shadow of coercion. The task remains to harness the immense power of national states for justice, security, and democracy, rather than allowing it to perpetuate conflict and repression.