Role of State in context of Geographic.

It is a challenging task to define ‘state’ and its roles in a concise manner, since they vary geographically on the basis of local conditions of that geographic and also because the role continues to change constantly. However, the standard Marxist views of state could be termed as “state is that works in the long term interests of the dominant property-owning classes: the state is the institution, or complex of institutions, which bases itself on the availability of forcible coercion of special agencies of society in order to maintain the dominance of a ruling class, preserve existing property relations from basic change, and keep all other classes in subjection’ (Hal Draper: p251]”. The fundamentalist Weberian views states role as to maintain the social order, an institution claiming monopoly of legitimate use of physical force in a given territory, run by an impersonal bureaucratic staff using legal-administrative mechanism. In this paper, I intend to explore the role of state in different geographies, namely in the regions like India, East Asia (South Korea, Taiwan), Latin America and Sahara Africa (South Africa and Botswana). Furthermore, I aim to draw focus on how successful implementation of policies, strategies have led to prosperity and intensified growth rate (East Asia and Saharan Africa) and how some have failed (India and Latin America).

Further classification of the state would be that of Maximalist state, Indian state is a Maximalist state; and it intervenes when in only necessary. It is a truism that, state in India is very favorable to the capitalist class and often overlooks the poor class and their rights. “Capitalism is the dominant mode of production in India, the state is predominantly a capitalist apparatus, and as such an agent of capitalist development nationally and locally.” (Das, R ). Indian state mainly functions on the divisions of class. The state in order to achieve success as the whole has to work strategies to reduce the class base. The upper class formation in India is of Capitalists and the rural Landlords. Often the state policies and laws are overlooked to amount profits for these classes. Failure of Land reforms is the substantial example for the Indian state and its dual role as representer of the capitalists. The neoliberal approach adopted by Indian state has seen lots of foreign investors interested in India, predominantly because of the huge reserve army of labor and cheap labor. These Multi National Companies (MNC’s) have enjoyed liberal state policies; and it has been overlooked under the banner of new age industrialization and capital oriented mindset etc. In a country like India, with a population of 1.22 billion; state constantly strives to maintain the law and order to maintain peace. India is a secular country, however, there have been numerous religious based rights, reservations made for certain class in government jobs, intra-stateism etc. have all added to the problems of state. Thus state is also responsible of addressing the strikes, revolts, demands by the lower class; needless to mention the addressing comes after several attempts, demands and even after few thousands of suicide by the farmers. The failure of Land Reforms exemplifies the true character of the Indian state. Post colonialism, lands in rural parts was unevenly distributed. Landlords amassed huge amounts of land, leaving farmers not owning any sort of land and working for them to pay their loans which were also collected from landlords. In short, farmers just worked to amass wealth of landlords, with no rights on the production of their own. This lead to a huge uproar among the farmers and the Land reforms were passed by the state, where land will be taken from landlords and distributed to farmers, while the landlords will be compensated. These reforms would have brought an end to the dominance of the landlords (powerful) class, subsequently would have also hurt the capitalist class who maintain their association with the landlords of the rural areas. Thus, a pressured Indian state took a back turn on their policies and the land reforms did not go through. “The state ensured that individual members of the lower classes may, through the courts and bureaucracy and through the market, obtain a piece of land and thus get their economic grievances addressed, but the political basis of economic/class inequality underlying these grievances – private property and the state which protects this – remains intact.” (Das. R). Although, currently land reform movements have taken rapid heat in some parts of India. This concludes the bipolar nature of state in India which is that the dominant Capitalist class often enjoys the amicable, tolerant and law bending nature of the state; and the poor rural population suffers the hostile, intolerant and law enforcing side of the state’s nature.
Latin America experienced delayed Land reform movements; they went through industrialization and realizing the agricultural surplus was not up to the mark then focused on agrarian reforms. The key with Land reform movement is also about its timing. Land reforms pre industrialization era would see the shining partnership of agriculture and industries, which serves as a back bone of a developing and growing nation. During the 1930’s agricultural expansion was at its peak in Latin America, which resulted in need of Capitalists and industries, thus the road of industrialization for Latin America took place. During the postwar period Latin America failed to put up with industrialization in terms of agriculture. “Latin America’s exports came down to half in 1960’s and to one fifth in 1990’s”(Kay, C). The state did not intervene in the development of agriculture simultaneously with that of industrialization. Later, only when state realized both economic and social pressure they included the agrarian reforms in their political movements. Currently although “Indeed, agrarian reforms were implemented in most Latin American countries, largely from the 1960s to the 1980s. However, they were often restricted in scope and thwarted in their aims by opposition forces or by government mismanagement (Thiesenhusen, 1995). In some cases landlords even managed to reverse thepeasants’ gains via counter-reforms. Thus today inequality, poverty and social exclusion are still prevalent throughout most of rural Latin America” (Kay, C). This sums the importance of state measures needed to be taken timely and orderly for the growth of nation.


It is not always that State has failed to bring about agrarian changes. State has tasted success in East Asian countries and some parts of Saharan Africa. In the first part of the successful implementation of the state policies I explore what policies East Asian state have adopted, and in later part how some parts of Saharan Africa have managed to prosper. Firstly, South Korea (S.K) had received their independence in 1948 from Japan. During those times, the country population was heavily rural based. After the Second World War S.K brought the agrarian reform, which ensured all tenants were entitle to ownership of the land they farmed. There are few noteworthy reasons why these land reforms happened, 1) the state had to neutralize the influence of communalism, disrupt any creating class formation post war with North Korea. 2) Due to its geographic location, it got great amount of help from U.S.A. Also, noteworthy is to mark out the timing of these reforms, they happen to be a lot before even the industrialization begun; unlike Latin America. This further ensured that the success in the agriculture prepared them to launch industrialization aggressively and more importantly coexist along with strong agricultural support. This is often recognized as the success pathway for emerging countries to improve on both sectors simultaneously. Land being evenly distributed did not create and major class, ensured a constant flow of labor released for urban industrialization, agricultural surplus being on highest production; provided with enough raw material and revenue for industrialization. The urban population grew rampantly by the end of late 1960’s, making it to 50% of the total population.
Remarkable turnaround happened because of the peasantries experience the ownership of land and the eradication of the land lord class. “The state played
An active role in promoting this higher efficiency but this was done in an authoritarian manner and without much economic support from the state.”(Kay, C). State played an active role in appointing the rural peasantries into politics and making them agenda of the national development. They ensured the mobilization from rural to urban was a transient and salient process. State also played an active role in having check on standards of agriculture. “Through these methods the dirigiste and authoritarian state forced the pace of agricultural modernization to the extent that South Korean farmers achieved exceptionally high yields at a very low financial cost to the state (Wade, 1983)”. The stat proved a crucial role in order to create a bridge between urban and rural areas and the connection leads them to success as the whole. They achieved great aid and support from US because of its geographic location, but still state has to be applauded for laying strict outlaws, planning and sticking to them.
‘Strong State’ would be recognized of as a state which suppresses the laws through coercion and force. However, the state requires radical change that tends to prevail over most of the sub continent in Africa. They need a state that generates Capitalism and that reinvestment of the capital has to happen in Africa itself. This is mainly because of “the weak democratic state in Africa rather than antecedent to failures of capitalist development; these failures in turn have to do with conditions that even the strongest of states would retreat from rectifying, i.e. the dispossession of the vast majority of the population in the sense of their separation from the land.”(Cox,K and Negi,R, 2010). However, the case of South Africa, has experienced a strong process of capitalist development and a concomitant proletarianisation of immediate producers. South Africa of all states has achieved stable representative institute and a strong state that has achieved high level of penetration in civil society. This has occurred because of the states measure of working simultaneously on agriculture and urban area. White agriculture; industry through parastatals; city planning; and the creation of a modern infrastructure of railways, airports, water and sewerage provision, and seaports are some of the measures that state has implemented. Except South Africa, Botswana is the only country with rapid capital development with stable democratic state. It is also the country where there is clear separation of the immediate producers from the means of production has been most complete. These African nations serve as great case study of how a ‘strong’ state can actually overcome the geographical backdrops and march towards a success nation.
To conclude my paper, I have mentioned how state in India is a maximalist one and it only intervenes when needed. India is a predominant capital producing country and thus state is favorable to capitalist class. The turnaround on Land Reforms is the classic example of this situation. Latin America suffered from not passing the time agrarian reforms; it was quite important to recognize the land reform movements prior to the industrialization era. East Asian countries have adopted that method, and also state has played an active role in the means of production of agriculture and empowerment of the peasants and rural areas. This model was adopted in South Africa and Botswana, where they recognized the capital formation and the growth of rural and urban sector simulataneously.