Spruyt+1994+Sovereign+state+and+its+competitors

Spruyt 1994 The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change

**Q**: Doesn’t accept bellicist or growth-centered explanations for rise of modern state. Explains rise of new organizational forms (feudalism, the church, and empires, all non-territorial forms of organization => kings, city-leagues, and city-states, territoriality as a dominant principle). The crucial question is not the oft-studied growth of formal government (bureaucracy) but "why some governments took the form of sovereign territorial rule whereas others did not."

**Claim**: feudalism did not give way to any single successor institution in simple linear fashion.

**Methodology [Durkheimian]**: Agent-driven choices interaction of individual and state, state as embedded agent. Model of change: social and political realignments following exogenous shock. Gould: p unctuated equilibrium : institutional outcomes don’t need to be optimal; there are good reasons for static institutions – transaction costs of change are high.

**Cases** Examining competing institutions that arose during the decline of feudalism - urban leagues (Germany), city states (Italy) and sovereign monarchies (France); France : Sovereign State Goal was to extend authority to counter feudalist landed elite; Shift to exclusive Roman Law (codified, not personalised, over a strict territorial basis, emphasis on personal prosperity). Germany : Hanseatic League Alliance between towns and lords (weak kings weren’t able to interfere, no sovereign state), organized trade and war; o clear territorial borders or hierarchical structure, prevention of feudalistic organisation. Italy : City States Open for trade, no central authority (strong landed aristocracies), cities under rule of special ‘officers’ (Signoria, Podesta), noble/burgher (citizen) coalition

**Findings**: (Confirm Gould’s version of **evolutionary** theory) Selection mechanisms : 1) Survival of the fittest; 2) Mutual empowerment; 3) Mimicry and exit. => Sovereign territorial authority proved superior to its rivals in organizing domestic society (mobilizing resources, providing goods, judiciary, enforcement) and structuring external affairs (easier to negotiate).
 * 1)  dramatic economic change in medieval economy => variety of institutional forms;
 * 2)  selective phase of institutional evolution.

**Summary**
 * Sovereignty developed as result of adaptation, not conflict. Isomorphism through competition;
 * The territorial sovereign state prevailed owing to its: a) Internal hierarchy; b) territorial demarcation. (War was intermediary cause only)

**Critiques**: 1. Nature of Institutional Change: Is change sporadic or incremental? what is the turning point?
 * 1)  Is it institutional change or individual preferences for institutional change?
 * 2)  (how did territorial sovereign states develop in the first instance)?