The state is a core concept in political science. The concept can be confusing for Americans, who are used to referring to the territorial subunits of the United States as “states.” However, in both the subfields of comparative politics and international relations, the term “state” is used to identify sovereign states. In this sense the US is a “sovereign state” (singular), but the various states (e.g. Mississippi, Texas, Montana) are not.

It is important to distinguish the concept “state” from other related terms: country, nation, government, and regime. The term country loosely refers to the state, government, regime, and people who live in a specifically defined territory. The term nation refers to a group of people with a common political aspiration, specifically self-government. Often (but not always), a “nation” is also defined by common ethnicity, language, or history. The term government refers very specifically to the people who actually govern on a day-to-day basis (this includes elected officials and professional bureaucrats). Finally, the term regime refers to the broader norms of politics (for example, whether the country is a democracy or some other regime type).

The term state is a more complicated, and rather abstract concept. The most commonly used definition of the state comes from the German sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920). He defined the state as any entity that “successfully claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”1 A state is sovereign, therefore, because it is the primary and ultimate authority in a territory—that is, it is able to act independently of any external or internal forces. Weber’s emphasis on the monopoly of violence highlights the state’s sovereign authority. This doesn’t mean that states should use violence to terrorize their subjects; in fact, successful states limit violence in their territory by monopolizing it.

A number of political philophers have suggested that states emerge because of a “social contract” in which citizens agree to give significant powers to a “sovereign” in exchange for protection. An extreme form of this argument was made by the American sociologist, Charles Tilly (1929-2008), who argued that states were like mafia protection rackets.2 According to Tilly, states evolved as monarchs compelled their subjects to pay taxes in order to pay for protection (from rival monarchs, vandals, etc.). Over time, as states became democratic, subjects became citizens and expected states to also provide additional public goods (e.g. roads, public education, pensions, etc.). When states fail to provide adequate public goods, they risk losing popular legitimacy or even sparking unrest.

But states jealously protect their monopoly on violence. For example, only the state (trough the police and courts) is empowered to prevent, prosecute, and punish criminals. Imagine if you found out your neighbor burglarized your home recently. If you broke into his house, took back your possessions, and locked him up in your basement, you would have committed a crime. We expect the state to provide us with security (and other additional public goods); if it fails to do so, we begin to see the state as illegitimate. If citizens take the law into their own hands, the state's monopoly on violence erodes. The risk of a brutal, authoritarian regime is real—but so is the risk of social anarchy. Strong, legitimate states enforce law and order and reduce uncertainty by monopolizing violence; democratic states answer to their citizens, who ensure that states do not abuse their powers.

One way to better understand the relationship between states and violence is to look at failed states—that is, at countries that have very weak or ineffective states. One way to do this is to look at the annual Failed States Index. Published jointly by the Fund for Peace (a US-based think tank) and the magazine Foreign Policy, the index measures the capacities of states along social, economic, and political dimensions using 12 different indicators. The various indicators measure not only observed state weakness (e.g. increased vigilantism), but also factors traditionally understood to contribute to the erosion of state capabilities (e.g. sharp economic decline).

This assignment asks you to look over the index, which measures 177 countries and ranks them from “worst” to “best” states by combining the 12 different indicators into a single score. The worst states are in danger of or have already virtually collapsed—they are unable to enforce law and order, provide basic social services, or face insurgencies and civil war. The best states are those that have a high quality of life and strong, legitimate states that keep their citizens safe. As you look at the index, think about what the countries at the top and bottom of the index have in common with each other, and what separates them. Then, read the linked articles (from the July/August 2011 issue of Foreign Policy magazine):

To view the complete rankings for all 177 countries, click on “Complete Results” from the Foreign Policy website. That takes you to the Fund for Peace website. From there, click on “Interactive Scores” to view the complete rankings. You can click on the icons for any of the indicators to sort countries by that single index.