Abstract
For the purposes of reviewing works on post-colonial state formation in general, it would be convenient to adopt a taxonomy that divides the study of the state in terms of three analytic approaches, the psychological, cultural, and structural. In the course of discussing these perspectives some remarks will also be made on attempts to explain democracy and authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For more on psychological theories of regime type see Zevedei Barbu, Democracy and Dictatorship: Their Psychology and Patterns of Life, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956;
Lawrence E. Grinter, ‘The Social Psychology of Political Development’, Southeast Asian Spectrum 2, 1, 1973, 1–10;
Everett E. Hagen, On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1962;
Robert D. Hess, ‘The Socialization of Attitudes toward Political Authority,’ International Social Science Journal 15, 1963, 542–59;
Lucian Pye, Politics, Personality, and Nation Building, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.
Samuel Huntington, ‘Will More Countries Become Democratic’, Political Science Quarterly 99, 2, 1984, 193–218: p. 216.
Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Little Brown, 1966.
Alvin A. Rabushka & Kenneth A. Shepsle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, Columbus, OH: Merril, 1972.
Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956;
Lipset, ‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address’, American Sociological Review 59, 1, 1994, 1–22.
Miriam Budiardjo, Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1992, pp. 69–72.
Charles Taylor & Michael C. Hudson, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, 2nd ed, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972; Volker Bornschier & Peter Heintz, eds, Compendium of Data for World-System Analysis: A Sourcebook of Data Based on the Study of MNCs, Economic Policy and National Development, Zurich: Soziologisches Institut der Universitat Zurich, n.d.
Richard Robison, ‘Culture, Politics, and Economy in the Political History of the New Order’, Indonesia 31, 1981, 1–29.
This article is a critique of the so-called ‘cultural politics’ approach in the following: Donald Emmerson, Indonesia’s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976;
R. W. Liddle, ‘Models of Indonesian Politics’, Paper presented to the Department of Politics Seminar, Monash University, 1977; Karl Jackson, ‘Bureaucratic Polity: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Power and Communications in Indonesia’, in Karl D. Jackson & Lucian W. Pye, eds, Political Power and Communication in Indonesia, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, pp. 82–136.
See also Burhan D. Magenda, ‘Ethnicity and State-Building in Indonesia: the Cultural Base of the New Order’, in Remo Guidieri, Francesco Pellizi & Stanley J. Tambiah, eds, Ethnicities and Nations: Process of Interethnic Relations in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, Houston: Rothko Chapel, 1988, pp. 345–61.
On another aspect of the relationship between culture and democracy see Ingrid Creppell, ‘Democracy and Literacy: The Role of Culture in Political Life’, European Journal of Sociology 30, 1989, 22–47.
David E. Apter & Charles Andrain, ‘Comparative Government: Developing New Nations,’ Journal of Politics 30, 2, 1968, 372–416: p. 390.
Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
Lucian Pye, ‘The Politics of Southeast Asia,’ in Gabriel A. Almond & James S. Coleman, eds, The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 65–152: p. 91.
Richard Butwell, Southeast Asia: A Political Introduction, New York: Praeger, 1975, pp. 57, 62.
See Rupert Emerson, Representative Government in Southeast Asia, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955, pp. 20–3, 64–77, for accounts of pre-independence experiences with democratic procedures in the Netherlands Indies and British Malaya.
J.S. Fumivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, New York: New York University, 1956, pp. 238–9.
Rupert Emerson, Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937, p. 423.
Amry Vandenbosch, The Dutch East Indies: Its Government, Problems, and Politics, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1941, p. 114.
Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, p. 35.
Karl Marx, The German Ideology, New York: International Publishers, 1970, pp. 79–80.
Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, 1966, p. xv.
Christopher Chase-Dunn, Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989, p. 125.
Karl Marx, ‘The Class Struggles in France,’ pt. 2, in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works: Volume 10, Marx & Engels, 1849–1851, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978, pp. 45–145: p. 79.
For a test of Moore’s theory see John D. Stephens, ‘Democratic Transition and Breakdown in Western Europe, 1870–1939: A Test of the Moore Thesis’, American Journal of Sociology 94, 5, 1989, 1019–77.
Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society, 4 vols, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1935;
Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939;
Robert Michels, Political Parties, New York: Free Press, 1962.
Eva Etzioni-Halevy, ‘Democratic-Elite Theory: Stabilization versus Breakdown of Democracy’, European Journal of Sociology 31, 2, 1990, 317–50;
L. G. Field & J. Higley, Elites and Non-Elites: The Possibilities and Their Side Effects, Andover, MA: Warner Modular Publications, 1973;
J. Higley K. & M. G. Burton, ‘The Elite Variable in Democratic Transitions and Breakdowns’, American Sociological Review 54, 1989, 17–32;
J. Higley, Ursula Hoffman-Lange, Charles Kadushin & Gwen Moore, ‘Elite Integration in Stable Democracies: A Reconsideration’, European Sociological Review 7, 1, 1991, 35–53;
A. Lijphart, ‘Consociational Democracy’, World Politics 21, 1969, 207–25;
K. Prewitt & A. Stone, The Ruling Elites: Elite Theory, Power, and American Democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Magnus Blomstrom & Bjorn Hettne, Development Theory in Transition — The Dependency Debate and Beyond: Third World Responses, London: Zed, 1985, p. 20.
For a critical discussion see Joseph R. Gusfield, ‘Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change’, American Journal of Sociology 72, 4, 1967, 351–62.
Bert Hoselitz et al, Theories of Economic Growth, Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960.
Walter W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
Gabriel A. Almond, ‘Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, in Almond & James S. Coleman, eds, The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 3–64;
Almond, ‘A Developmental Approach to Political System’, World Politics 17, 1965, 183–214;
Almond & G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Little Brown, 1966.
Almond, ‘Comparative Political Systems’, Journal of Politics 18, 1956, 391–409; Almond & Powell, Comparative Politics.
David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
A. F. K. Organski, The Stages of Politieal Development, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.
Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, New York: International Publishers, 1963, p. 122.
For a discussion of the two conceptions of the state in Marx, see Ralph Miliband, ‘Marx and the State,’ Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1965, pp. 278–96.
See, for example, S. M. Lipset, ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,’ American Political Science Review 53, 1, 1959, 69–105;
Lipset, ‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address’, American Sociological Review 59, 1, 1994, 1–22;
S. M. Lipset, Kyong-Ryung Seong & John Charles Torres, ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Social Requisites of Democracy’, International Social Science Journal 136, 1993, 155–75;
Karl W. Deutsch, ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development,’ American Political Science Review 55, 3, 1961, 473–514.
Georg P. Muller (with the collaboration of Volker Bornschier), Comparative World Data: A Statistical Handbook for the Social Sciences, Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988, pp. 240, 304.
See, for example, Kenneth Bollen, ‘World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 48, 4, 1983, 468–79.
Kenneth A. Bollen & Robert W. Jackman, ‘Economic and Noneconomic Determinants of Political Democracy in the 1960s,’ Research in Political Sociology 1, 1985, 27–48: pp. 38–9. Earlier studies with similar results are Lipset, ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy,’;
Phillip Cutright, ‘National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis,’ American Sociological Review 28, 2, 1963, 253–64;
Deane Neubauer, ‘Some Conditions of Democracy,’ American Political Science Review 61, 4, 1967, 1002–9;
Robert W. Jackman, ‘On the Relation of Economic Development to Democratic Performance,’ American Journal of Political Science 17, 3, 1973, 611–21.
Christopher Chase-Dunn, ‘The Effects of International Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study,’ American Sociological Review 40, 6, 1975, 720–38;
Volker Bornschier, Christopher Chase-Dunn, & Richard Rubinson. ‘Cross-National Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Investment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of Findings and a Reanalysis,’ American Journal of Sociology 84, 3, 1978, 651–83.
Michael Timberlake & Kirk R. Williams, ‘Dependence, Political Exclusion, and Government Repression: Some Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 49, 1, 1984, 141–6.
Richard Rubinson, ‘Dependence, Government Revenue, and Economic Growth, 1955–1970,’ Studies in Comparative International Development 12, 2, 1977, 3–28.
Richard Rubinson, ‘The World-Economy and the Distribution of Income Within States: A Cross-National Study,’ American Sociological Review 41, 4, 1976, 638–59: p. 641.
Bollen, ‘World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 48, 4, 1983, 468–79: p. 470.
Guillermo O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics, Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973.
Guillermo O’Donnell & P. C. Schmitter, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
See also James Cotton, ‘From Authoritarianism to Democracy in South Korea’, Political Studies 37, 1989, 244–59.
See, for example, Hooshang Amirahmadi, ‘The Non-Capitalist Way of Development,’ Review of Radical Political Economics 19, 1, 1987, 22–46;
Clive Y. Thomas, ‘The “Non-Capitalist Path” as Theory and Practice of Decolonisation and Socialist Transformation,’ Latin American Perspectives 5, 2, 1978, 10–28.
Hamza Alavi, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan & Bangladesh,’ New Left Review 74, 1972, 59–81: p. 62; Idem., ‘State and Class Under Peripheral Capitalism,’ in Hamza Alavi & Teodor Shanin, eds, Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies, London: Macmillan Educational Ltd., 1982, pp. 289–307: p. 298.
Hamza Alavi, ‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production,’ Economic and Political Weekly 10, 33–5 (special issue), 1975, 1235–62: p. 1235.
See, for example, Hamza Alavi, ‘Peasants and Revolution,’ The Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1975, pp. 241–77; Idem., ‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production.’
Nicos Poulantzas, ‘Capitalism and the State,’ New Left Review 58, 1969, p. 74. 82. Alavi, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies,’ p. 72.
John Saul, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania,’ in idem, The State and Revolution in Eastern Africa, New York & London: Monthly Review Press, 1979, pp. 167–99.
See Neil J. Smelser, Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976, pp. 215–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1997 Syed Farid Alatas
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alatas, S.F. (1997). Theories of Democratic and Authoritarian State Formation. In: Democracy and Authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378544_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378544_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-40274-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37854-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)