Re-reading Weber, re-conceptualizing state-building: from neo-Weberian to post-Weberian approaches to state, legitimacy and state-building

Abstract

This article analyzes how different interpretations of Max Weber's work on the state and legitimacy have materialized in contemporary research on-and practice of-international state-building. We argue that the currently prevailing neo-Weberian institutionalism in state-building theory and practice is based on a selective interpretation of the passionate and polemicist 'politician' Max Weber, whilst omitting almost entirely the wealth of thought on interpretivist method and the anti-foundationalist approach to social sciences that he has developed in his scholarly work. The neo-Weberian institutionalist approach thus focuses almost exclusively on state capacity and institutions. In contrast to this restricted approach, we will show how Weber's work on the historical and cultural dimensions of legitimacy is instructive in understanding the emergence and consolidation of social orders. Research agendas embracing such perspectives offer a viable way forward from the securitized approach to state-building and international intervention, in the process moving beyond the neo-Weberian orthodoxy.

Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach

“…This section lists ten sources of legitimacy, derived from scholarly work on the legitimacy of law (Colla, 2017;Fuller, 1969;Gur, 2013;Luban, 2010;Waldron, 1994), states (Locke, 1690(Locke, /1947Lottholz & Lemay-Hébert, 2016;Peter, 2017;Rawls, 2005;Weber, 1919Weber, /2007, global and transnational governance (Buchanan & Keohane, 2006;Cadman, 2011;Schmidt, 2013), environmental regulation (Bodansky, 1999), safety industries (Dekker, 2012), organisations (Díez-De-Castro & Peris-Ortiz, 2018) and human rights (Breakey, 2018;Cohen, 2004;Gilabert, 2011;Hollinger, 2001;Ignatieff, 2001;Rorty, 1993). Where applicable, I have also included insights from the existing literature on the legitimacy of ethical codes (Adelstein & Clegg, 2016;Long & Driscoll, 2008;Mele & Schepers, 2013;Verpeet, Casterle, Arend, & Gastmans, 2005),…”

Introduction to the Handbook on Intervention and Statebuilding: moving beyond the current orthodoxy

“…The two conceptions of the state -as government or as social system -can be associated with distinct sociological camps, each with their own sets of assumptions. In this regard, the neo-Weberian approach to statehood is the starting point for a number of analyses, having attained the status of orthodoxy in the mainstream social science literature, even if to a certain extent neo-Weberians fail to do justice to the complexity of Weber's sociology of the state (Lottholz and Lemay-Hébert 2016). State capacities to govern are deemed central to the institutionalist approach; states exist to deliver public goods which encompass a list of state institutions and functions.…”

“…Through the modern -and quite mainstream -episteme, the state is understood to be a provider of public goods, and the key public good in a Weberian fashion is security provision. Max Weber's (1948, p. 78) definition of the state 'as a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory' gained traction across various disciplines, and has contributed to cementing peace and conflict's disciplinary focus on security provision and state institutions (Lottholz and Lemay-Hébert 2016). What came to be known as the institutional approach to statebuilding (Lemay-Hébert 2009, 2013 has also been challenged by other approaches, bundled under the wide umbrella of 'social legitimacy' (Lemay-Hébert 2014).…”

Commercial Security’s’ Effect on Security of Kenyans in Private Venues

“…The notion of a state was influenced by the views of Max Weber, and the provision of security was viewed as the most fundamental obligation and task of the state. The 'Weberian State' was perceived to enjoy the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical violence [3]. According to Western tradition, the state is responsible for the provision of internal security and defence from external threats in the territory that it has legitimacy.…”