Assignment Cover Sheet

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Undergraduate Division School of Government & Society (College of Social Sciences) 1. STUDENT ID No. (srn): 2. PROGRAMME OF STUDY: 3. YEAR OF STUDY: 4. MODULE TITLE: 5. MODULE BANNER CODE: 6. MODULE LEADERS NAME: 8. SUBMISSION DATE: 9. ASSIGNMENT TITLE: 10. EXTENSION: 1032397 BA Sociology 3 Political Sociology 08 08417A / 08 08418B Will Leggett 08/01/2013 Critically compare and contrast the following traditions of state theory: pluralism and Marxism No

7. SEMINAR TEACHERS NAME (IF DIFFERENT TO ABOVE): N/A

(Please Note -Module information required above can be found in your Module Handbook )

Penalties:
University policy requires that a penalty be imposed of 5 marks to be deducted from the actual mark achieved for each working day the assignment is late until 0 is reached. There is a strict deadline of 11:59pm on day of submission. A further 5 marks will be deducted for every 11:59pm deadline that is missed. Any written assessment that exceeds the stated word limit by more than 10% will receive a 5 mark deduction.

Extensions & Plagiarism Information:

For more information about extensions and plagiarism please refer to your Module WebCT.

1032397

Word count: 4365

Critically compare and contrast the following two traditions of state theory: pluralism and Marxism That nebulous constellation of institutions, agencies and actors which [claims] sovereignty for itself as the supreme political authority within a defined territory for whose governance it is responsible (Hay & Lister, 2006, p.5) known as the state is of fundamental importance to political analysis. If politics is broadly understood as the exercise of power, and political analysis political science and political sociology as the study of power (as Laswells well-worn definition of politics as who gets what, when and how would suggest), then the centrality of the state, as the site where political power is most visibly exercised, to political analysis can scarcely be exaggerated. And yet, for such a significant concept, there is surprisingly little in the way of discernible agreement about the states fundamental character. Indeed, for Hay & Lister, the state has meant, and continues to mean, a great variety of different things to a great variety of authors from a great variety of perspectives (ibid, p.1). In an effort to navigate a way through this debate, this essay seeks to illustrate the points of contact and of divergence between two influential traditions in state theory: the pluralist tradition and the Marxist tradition. Initially, the classical pluralist perspective is outlined. We then turn to a number of critical remarks made of classical pluralism which serve to illustrate the points of contention between it and the Marxist tradition. The focus then shifts to various Marxist accounts of the state. Marx himself is discussed, followed by the instrumentalism of Miliband and the structuralism of Poulantzas. Lastly, the Marxist-inspired account of Block is compared with a similar account offered by the neo-pluralist Lindblom, each of whom seeks to reformulate their respective traditions of state theory. It is suggested that these accounts successfully remedy the weaknesses of their respective traditions. Block moves beyond the instrumentalist/structuralist dualism of Marxism, and Lindblom demonstrates sensitivity to the structural constraints on state action provided by the imperatives of capitalism, thereby avoiding the naivety of classical pluralism. Insofar, then, as they address the points of contention between pluralism and Marxism both accounts suggest that impasse between the two can be transcended. The exchange between pluralist and Marxist state theorists revolves around the question of whether the state is a neutral terrain for competition between diverse group interests, or is in fact beholden to particular interests, namely those of capital. Although the debate between these two perspectives would appear to be somewhat of an intellectual impasse, with each having little to offer one another in terms of understanding the state, our contention is that each does in fact have something to offer the other and that recent theoretical contributions show this to be the case. Furthermore, the disagreement between them addresses a question of the
2

1032397

Word count: 4365

most profound political significance; in other words, the question over which pluralists and Marxists disagree concerns whether the practice of westernstyle representative democracy as witnessed today coheres with its theory. It is for these reasons that a comparison of pluralist and Marxist state theory is desirable and necessary. To this end, the classical pluralist understanding of the state is outlined below. The starting point for the classical pluralist conception of the political process is a conception of power which asserts that A enjoys power over B insofar as A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do (Dahl, 1957, p.201). Power is therefore understood in zero-sum terms, with As power being mirrored in Bs lack of power (Hay, 2002, p.173). Yet, no one political interest can obtain a monopoly on power, which is widely dispersed throughout the social-political landscape. This gives rise to a view of politics as defined by competition between interest groups seeking to realise their political goals against rival interests. In this way, pluralists understand the political process in much the same way as economists do the market-place: as a realm of utility maximisation (Held, 1987, p.188). However, the fact that no single interest group can obtain a monopoly on power means that the realising of political preferences necessitates a process of bargaining, with a view to compromise (Held, 1987, p.189; Marsh, 2002, p.15; Smith, 2006, p.26). It is here that the state enters the pluralist equation. Crucially, in this process of group competition and compromise, the state functions as a neutral arbiter between the competing interests. Independent of any particular interest (Marsh, 2002, p.15), the activities and policies of the state reflect the democratic equilibrium which results from the aforementioned bargaining process (Held, 1987, p.188). Political outcomes, then, emerge from the balance of political forces at the time; those powerful groups able to get their way in the political arena are the ones most satisfied. However, given the dispersal of power throughout society, the matter of which groups triumph and which lose out is one of contingency and is therefore a question to be investigated empirically. The passivity of the role of the state in this account it is understood in the words of Marsh (1995, p.272) as a weather-vane responding to the competing pressures from various interests is indicative of what Smith (2006, p.21) identifies as a general under-theorising of the state on behalf of the pluralists. For them, it is of secondary importance to the process of interest group competition and insofar as they remark on the state they tend to downplay its importance. However, what should be taken away from this account of classical pluralism is a view of the state as a neutral terrain on which competition between organised group interests takes place. Classical pluralism as outlined above has been the subject of criticism along a number of lines from a number of perspectives. However, given that our present purpose is to illuminate the exchange between pluralists and
3

1032397

Word count: 4365

Marxists, the criticisms discussed are limited to those which open the way for a Marxist response to the pluralist conception of the state. These are: firstly, the one-dimensional view of power with which pluralists operate; secondly, its tendency to confuse pluralism with plurality; and lastly, its elision of positive and normative analysis. Each is discussed in turn. The classical pluralist definition of power discussed above is operationalised through examining the process of decision-making: it is to the extent that a group can influence state decision-making that it can be said to hold power (Hay, 2002, p.172). As such, this view of power has been criticised as one-dimensional. It ignores the second face of power which acknowledges the centrality of non-decision making to political outcomes, thereby discounting the possibility than one powerful interest may be able to set the political agenda (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962). It is similarly ignorant of the third face of power which draws attention to the structural capacity to shape the subjectivity of political actors, influencing the very interests they seek to advance (Lukes, 1974). For Marxists, this one dimensional account of power, which focuses on the directly observable and easily catalogued process of decision-making, ensures that pluralists fail to adequately grasp the manner in which the state ensures the reproduction of the capitalist formation a process which is largely unobservable. As a consequence of adopting this one-dimensional view of power, pluralists have tended to confuse pluralism with plurality (Marsh, 2002, pp.14-37; see also Held, 1987, pp.199-200). Pluralism mistakes the existence of a multiplicity of political interest groups (plurality) for a wide dispersal of power (pluralism). Put simply, pluralism misses the fact that certain interests within society clearly control resources which constrain government policy (Marsh, 2002, p.23). For Marxists, as we will see, this certain interest is that of capitalist class, the resource is question being capital. Their confusion between pluralism and plurality ensures that classical pluralists fail to acknowledge the predominance of this interest. Further to this tendency, classical pluralism has been accused of eliding positive analysis and normative advocacy (Smith, 2006, p.22, 25; Held, 1987, p.196). Indeed, it has tended to conflate democracy an idea richer for its long and contested history with what is practiced in a comparatively narrow range of polities and, in doing so, has overlooked its exclusions and conflicts (Held, 1987, p.196). Consequently, classical pluralism has sometimes been seen as an apologia for Western (particularly American) democracy, which, for Marxists, represents a hollow substitute for what Marx describes as the true democracy of communist society (in Hay, 2006, p.66). Taken together, these critical remarks provide the central points of contention between pluralists and Marxists over the nature of the state and,
4

1032397

Word count: 4365

as such, open the way for the Marxist account which provides our next focus. It is wise, however, to remain cognisant of one central difficulty which presents itself in drawing a comparison between the pluralist Marxist approaches to the state: that there is no single, unified, Marxist conception of the state (Hay, 2006, p.60). As a starting point we could do worse than consult Marx himself. We then move on to consider how his legacy is manifest in the work of Miliband, Poulantzas and Block. Fundamental to Marxs wider project of scientific socialism was his concern to expose the ideological character of liberal-democratic theory which, for him, fostered the illusion that substantive freedom and selfdetermination were possible in the context of market society (for one of Marxs paradigmatic statement on the limits to what he terms political emancipation see his On The Jewish Question in Marx, 1994, pp.1-26). One of his main targets in this endeavour is the state itself, with Marx expressly rejecting the pluralist notion that the liberal-democratic state is a neutral terrain upon which competing group interests seek to realise their goals. Rather for Marx, the state, as part of the superstructure of society, is deeply, even inescapably implicated in securing (a) the conditions necessary for capital accumulation and (b) the long-term reproduction of the capitalist mode of production (Hay, 2006, pp. 65-68; Morrison, 2006, pp.127-135). The state serves these purposes in various ways. Most fundamentally, as the supreme political authority, it alone can guarantee the property rights which form the basis of capitalist exploitation. Furthermore, the advent of the welfare state in the 20th century has been interpreted from a Marxist perspective as an attempt to assuage the conflict between capital and labour, and to militate against the immiseration of the working class, both of which according to Marxs original formulation threatened the long-term prospects of the capitalist mode of production (Barrow, 1993, p.6). For Marx, then, the state is far from a neutral arbiter between competing interests, but is in fact beholden to the interests of capital. We have already seen that classical pluralism suffers from a number of problems which serve to undermine its explanatory purchase. A Marxist may be inclined to take this criticism further. Insofar as pluralism confuses plurality with pluralism, elides positive and normative analysis, and is prevented from conceptualising the privileged political position of capital by its onedimensional conception of power, it posits a false coherence between the theory and practice of Western democracy. Marx, then, would reject the pluralist conception of the state as ideological, its premises serving to obscure the subordination of state machinery to the exigencies of capital accumulation. (Indeed, Marsh (2002, p.43), a (non-Marxist) critic of pluralism, suggest that pluralism can itself be seen as a discursive construction of power, which protects the interests of the dominant forces in society, masquerading as an empirical analysis).
5

1032397

Word count: 4365

A number of later Marxist state theorists have sought to elaborate upon Marxs contention that the state is the servant of capital. Our focus here is on the instrumentalist approach of Miliband, the structuralism of Poulantzas and the account offered by Block which seeks to move beyond the dualism between the first two. The analytical disagreements between these theories, and particularly the degree to which each diverges from pluralism an important source of debate within the Marxist tradition itself provides the focus for the next section of this essay. Marx came close to positing an instrumentalist definition of the state when he declared that it is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie (Marx & Engels, 1998 [1848], p.5). In his The State in Capitalist Society (1969), Ralph Miliband examines the overlap between political and economic elites in order to expound upon this insight from Marx. For Miliband, the fact that the commanding heights of the state are overwhelmingly occupied by those who share the class position, ideological assumptions and political interests of the capitalist class ensures that it functions to secure the conditions necessary for capital accumulation. The state is literally in the hands of the bourgeoisie who utilise it to further their class interests. Milibands Marxist account of the state thus possesses a profoundly instrumentalist accent (see Barrow, 1993, pp.13-50). That is to say that it focuses on the agency of the personnel who occupy the key positions within the state itself. The state is only capitalist insofar as it is in the hands of the capitalist elite; that is, it is contingently so (Hay, 2006, p.72). We may, then, see Milibands work as an empirical refutation of the pluralist claims regarding the diffuse distribution of power between competing interests (Held, 1987, p.207) and it is in this regard that it is valuable. The current Cabinet of Prime Minister David Cameron has an estimated cumulative wealth of 70m (Hope, 2012). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider the degree to which their policies may be said to serve the interests of capital, and this limits our ability to fully assess its merits, this fact suggests that Milibands thesis concerning the large degree of overlap between political and economic elites is as relevant today as when it was written in 1969. Pluralism, at least in its classical formulation, is far too sanguine over such political networks. Although, as we shall see, the work of Miliband and others has prompted a significant rethinking of pluralism to account for such observations. If Milibands account of the state can be said to diverge empirically from the pluralist account, it has been suggested by some Marxist critics that it fails to extricate itself theoretically from the pluralist model. This is the argument of the structuralist Marxist Nicos Poulantzas who develops a theory of the capitalist state against Milibands instrumentalist account of the state in a capitalist society (1972, pp.238-262). For Poulantzas, Miliband concedes too much to the pluralist perspective by appearing to accept its
6

1032397

Word count: 4365

basic precepts: although he illuminates the confusion between pluralism and plurality which plagues pluralist thought, in doing so he is drawn onto the terrain of his opponents. In other words, if, as we have seen, pluralism amounts to ideology as far as Marxists are concerned, then Miliband is unwittingly implicated in the ideology of pluralism which he seeks to refute. By focusing on the inter-personal relations between political and economic elites, Miliband concedes to the pluralist mystifications that the state is a neutral terrain upon which interest groups compete, and that it is agents rather than objective structural conditions which enjoy causal primacy over the functioning of the state (Hay, 2006, p.71; Barrow, 1993, p.46). Furthermore, Milibands instrumentalist formulation is analytically too simplistic. The direct participation of members of the capitalist class in the state apparatus is not the important side of the matter, suggests Poulantzas (1972, p.245), for this class is focused on the short-term imperative to maximise profits and, consequently, is ill-equipped to pursue the long-term necessity of the reproduction of the wider system. In contrast to Miliband, Poulantzas sees it as the objective, structural role of the state to ensure the functioning of the capitalist economy. The state enjoys relative autonomy from the mode of production, ensuring that if necessary it can act against the short-term wishes of particular capitalists. There is nothing contingent about this process: the state is inherently capitalist and it is for this reason that Poulantzas talks of the capitalist state rather than the state in capitalist society. It is clear, then, that such an account, unlike Milibands, breaks decisively from the pluralist assumption regarding the neutrality of the state. However, with his desire to formulate a Marxist conception of the state untainted by a residual pluralism, Poulantzas ends up at the opposite extreme to Milibands instrumentalism. His state theory, which, in keeping with structuralist Marxism more generally, asserts the causal priority of structures over agents and their intentions (Hay, 2006, p.72), offers little if no room at all for the agency of state actors. The state ultimately serves to reproduce the capitalist formation regardless of the intentions of the actors embedded within it, who are simply bearers of this structural imperative. As a result, Poulantzas entirely ignores the first, decision-making face of power. Furthermore, his account of the state implies a certain functionalism where the state exists to serve the needs of the capitalist mode of production, thereby reifying a human construct and reversing cause and effect. If pluralism was shown to focus on agency and ignore structural considerations, what we have, then, on the Marxist side of the debate is a somewhat crude dualism between a perspective which follows pluralism insofar as it privileges agency at the expense of structural factors, and a rival perspective which privileges structure at the expense of agential factors (Hay, 2006, pp.72-73). If the task of all good social science is to
7

1032397

Word count: 4365

transcend such dichotomous logic and to examine the interplay between structure and agency then more recent contributions to state theory from both theoretical perspectives have sought to do just this. As we will see, each seeks to address the lacunae in their respective traditions and the result is what Marsh (1995, 268-287) identifies as a convergence between the two traditions of state theory. Firstly, we turn to the Marxist-inspired account of Block. As Taylor (1995, p.264) notes, Block is concerned to explain the tendency of the state to serve the interests of the dominant class without succumbing to the problems of instrumentalist or functionalist forms of explanation. As such, he attempts to formulate a Marxist conception of the state which allows for a more dialectical conception of the relationship between structure and agency. As a starting point, Block follows Poulantzass critique of instrumentalism by suggesting that the capitalist class is incapable of ensuring the reproduction of the system in the long-run (Hay, 2006, p.74). As a result, against Miliband who, as we have seen, described the overlap between economic and political elites, Block draws a distinction between the capitalist class and what he calls state managers. These state managers have interests far closer to the long-term collective interests of capital than capital itself (ibid). This is not because they are capitalists or share a common personal background with capitalists, as suggested by Miliband; and nor is it because they are simply bearers of some structural imperative operating behind their backs, as Poulantzas intimates. Rather, state managers pursue policies which serve the imperatives of capital accumulation out of regard for their own self-interest, and it is in this respect that they can be considered autonomous, as actors endowed with the capacity for agency (Marsh, 1995, p.275). Their selfinterest lies predominantly in obtaining and retaining power, that is, in winning elections, and the prospects of this depend heavily upon economic performance. Increasing GDP and attendant benefits, such as a higher standard of living and more employment opportunities, allows state managers to increase their chances of winning elections. It is for this reason, then, that they choose to pursue policies which facilitate accumulation and are generally conducive to the interests of the capitalist class. We can see, then, that by rejecting Milibandian instrumentalism, Block is not drawn on to the theoretical terrain of the pluralists, and he similarly avoids lapsing into the structural functionalism of Poulantzas. He succeeds in reconciling a sensitivity to the intentions, interests and strategies of state personnel with an analysis of the structural context within [which] these strategies are operationalised and played out (Hay, 2006, p.74). Therefore, he transcends the crude dualism between structure and agency presented in the debate between the two other Marxist theorists. As such, Blocks Marxist account of the state is more successful in demonstrating that the classical
8

1032397

Word count: 4365

pluralists are mistaken in their emphasis upon the independence of the state from particular interests than are the accounts offered by Miliband and Poulantzas. The Marxist traditions increasing appreciation of both structure and agency, as witnessed in the account of Block, has been mirrored in a reformulation of pluralism which seeks to accommodate the insights encapsulated in the theoretical interventions outlined above. It is to this neo-pluralism to which we now turn. The shift towards neo-pluralism was spurred by the theoretical, methodological and empirical problems afflicting the classical formulation identified earlier in this essay (Marsh, 1995, 277 & 2002, p.16; Held, 1987, 201). After the critique offered by Bachrach & Baratz, neo-pluralism demonstrates a sensitivity to the second face (and to a lesser extent the third face) of power which is absent from the classical account. It has, as a result, come to see power as less diffuse than originally assumed and, in a major concession to Marxs theories of the state has acknowledged the political influence of capital (Held, 1987, p.202; also Smith, 2006, p.28). It is a measure of the influence of Marxist accounts of the state over pluralism that even the high-priest of the latter Robert Dahl believes that any adequate pluralist account must consider the political predominance of business interests (in Held, 1987, p.202). The advent of neo-pluralism is, therefore, indicative of a general process of convergence between the traditions of state theory which has been witnessed in recent decades (see Marsh, 1995, 268-287). This convergence between theories of the state is particularly evident in the work of Lindblom (1977), a neo-pluralist whose account bears strong resemblance that of Block. For Lindblom, like Block, the motivation of state actors to win elections ensures that they take decisions which further the interests of business, as the resultant improvements in economic performance increases their chances of doing so. As such, he is cognisant that the [structural] constraints imposed by the requirements of private accumulation... systematically limit [state] policy options (Held, 1987, p.202). Although this appears a long way from the classical pluralist account it more or less dispenses with the notion of the state as a neutral arbiter in a process of group competition in which no particular interest enjoys an advantage Lindbloms theory retains a distinctive pluralist slant. Firstly, he perceives a greater degree of pluralism outside of those policy areas which directly impinge upon the interests of capital. Secondly, and most significantly, he acknowledges that it is not simply the state which is dependent upon the process of capital accumulation (to raise revenues etc.), but that there is a reciprocal dependence on the state on behalf of capital (insofar as it enjoys tax-breaks or subsidies, for example). This is reminiscent of the pluralist view that interests enjoy resources required by their rivals
9

1032397

Word count: 4365

and that this necessitates compromise between them. Lindbloms account improves on Blocks insofar as he draws attention to this mutual dependence of state and capital, an insight which appears compelling in the wake of the financial crisis which saw states the world over step in to rescue failing banking sectors: just as much as states required the process of capital accumulation to continue undisturbed in the midst of the upheaval, capital required the political, economic and organisational power of the state in order to ensure that this was the case. Lindblom, then, largely succeeds in resolving the theoretical and methodological problems which afflict pluralism, just as Block succeeds in overcoming those germane to Marxism. Both accommodate that which was absent from the traditions upon which they sought to build. Blocks account serves to transcend the dualism between instrumentalism and structuralism presented in the accounts of Miliband and Poulantzas respectively. Unlike his predecessors, he succeeds in integrating structure and agency into his Marxist account of the state. Likewise, Lindblom, having acknowledged the critiques of pluralism, particularly that articulated by Bachrach & Baratz, is able to factor in to his pluralist schema a sensitivity to the privileged structural position of capital and therefore avoid the instrumentalist, intentionalist tendencies of classical pluralism. He is, unlike his classical pluralist predecessors, cognisant of the fact that the theory of western representative democracy is not necessarily realised in practice. The accounts of Block and Lindblom, therefore, suggest that each has engaged with the aforementioned points of contention between the two traditions and, when taken together, augur the possibility that they have found a way beyond the impasse alluded to at the outset of this essay. This essay has endeavoured to critically compare and contrast the pluralist and Marxist traditions of state theory. Initially, the classical pluralist formulation, which understands the state as a neutral terrain within a wider political landscape of interest group competition, was outlined. It was shown that this account suffers from three fundamental problems and that these provide the central points of contention between it and Marxism. These were; a one-dimensional conception of power; a tendency to confuse plurality with pluralism; and a continual elision between descriptive and prescriptive analysis. We then examined a number of Marxist responses to the classical pluralist understanding of the state. Miliband was shown to offer an important empirical critique while failing to avoid these theoretical problems which afflict the pluralist schema. The structuralist account of Poulantzas was judged to approach the opposite (functionalist) extreme in seeking a solution to this problem. The convergence between theories of the state and the concomitant increase in sophistication was then explored through an examination of two similar accounts offered by the Marxist Block and the neo-pluralist Lindblom. Each was shown to successfully address the
10

1032397

Word count: 4365

weaknesses and lacunae of their respective traditions, with Block moving beyond the Marxist traditions instrumentalist/structuralist dualism, and Lindblom exhibiting a sensitivity to the structural constraints on state action provided by the exigencies of capital accumulation, and therefore transcending the naivety of his classical pluralist predecessors. To the extent that they have wrestled with the dividing lines between pluralism and Marxism, then, they suggest that impasse between the two can be transcended and that each can learn from each other. Bibliography Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. (1962) Two Faces of Power, American Political Science Review Vol. 56 (4), pp.947-952 Barrow, C. (1993) Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, PostMarxist (London: The University of Wisconsin Press) Dahl, R. (1957) The Concept of Power, Behavioural Science Vol. 2 (3), pp.201-215 Hay, C. (2002) Divided by a Common Language: Conceptualising Power in C. Hay (ed.) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.168-193 Hay, C. (2006) (Whats Marxist about) Marxist State Theory? in C. Hay, M. Lister & D. Marsh (eds.), The State: Theories and Issues (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.59-78 Hay, C. & Lister, M. (2006) Introduction: Theories of the State in C. Hay, M. Lister & D. Marsh (eds.), The State: Theories and Issues (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.1-20 Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy (Cambridge: Polity) Hope, C. (27/05/2012) Exclusive: Cabinet is worth 70million, The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9290520/Exclusive-Cabinet-isworth-70million.html Accessed: 03/01/2013 Lindblom, C. (1977) Politics and Markets: The Worlds Political Economic Systems (New York: Basic Books Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan) Marsh, D. (1995) Convergence between Theories of the State in D. Marsh & G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.268-287
11

1032397

Word count: 4365

Marsh, D. (2002) Pluralism and the Study of British Politics: It is Always the Happy Hour for Men with Money, Knowledge and Power in C. Hay (ed.), British Politics Today (Cambridge: Polity), pp.14-37 Marx, K. (1994) Selected Writings, L. Simon (ed.), (Cambridge: Hackett) Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1998 [1848]) The Communist Manifesto (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Miliband, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Society: An Analysis of the Western System of Power (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson) Morrison, K. (2006) Marx, Durkheim, Weber (London: Sage) Poulantzas, N. (1972) The Problems of the Capitalist State in R. Blackburn (ed.), Ideology in Social Science (London: Fontana), pp.238-262 Smith, M. (2006) Pluralism in C. Hay, M. Lister & D. Marsh (eds.), The State: Theories and Issues (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.21-38 Taylor, G. (1995) Marxism in D. Marsh & G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp.248-267

12