On the nature of the capitalist state^∗

^∗This paper builds on and extends ideas based on pitelis (1991). Earlier versions of the paper have been presented to the 1991 European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy Annual Conference in Florence and to the 1991 EGOS Conference in Vienna. I am grateful to the participants for helpful comments and discussion. Iam also grateful for comments to an anonymous referee of this review. Any errors are mine.

Abstract

We assesss critically three existing economic perspectives, the neoclassical, the Austrian and the Marxist, on the question of the ‘nature of the capitalist state’. In particular we address the questions of the existence of the state, the state's ‘principal’, the principals' objectives and the growth and evolution of the state, and consider the answers provided by the three perspectives. We find all three perspectives limited, particularly in their treatment of history and dynamics. We suggest that the adoption of a dynamic perspective with historical considerations provides original and useful insights on the above questions and on the issues of ‘state autonomy’. We conclude that the capitalist state can be usefully regarded as an institutional device for the exploitation of the specialization and division of labour complementary to markets and firms, which driving force is the furthering of the interests of its principals (a controlling subject of the population), but subject to coonstraints, such as voting and exit.

^∗This paper builds on and extends ideas based on pitelis (1991). Earlier versions of the paper have been presented to the 1991 European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy Annual Conference in Florence and to the 1991 EGOS Conference in Vienna. I am grateful to the participants for helpful comments and discussion. Iam also grateful for comments to an anonymous referee of this review. Any errors are mine.

^∗This paper builds on and extends ideas based on pitelis (1991). Earlier versions of the paper have been presented to the 1991 European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy Annual Conference in Florence and to the 1991 EGOS Conference in Vienna. I am grateful to the participants for helpful comments and discussion. Iam also grateful for comments to an anonymous referee of this review. Any errors are mine.

Notes

^∗This paper builds on and extends ideas based on pitelis (1991). Earlier versions of the paper have been presented to the 1991 European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy Annual Conference in Florence and to the 1991 EGOS Conference in Vienna. I am grateful to the participants for helpful comments and discussion. Iam also grateful for comments to an anonymous referee of this review. Any errors are mine.