Revenue, Voice, and Public Goods in Three Pre-Modern States

Abstract

At least since the European Enlightenment, Western theories of state formation have developed around a dichotomizing principle that distinguishes between a highly centralized non-Western "other," the oriental despotic, versus a more liberal, democratic and market-driven Western form of the state (e.g., Sherratt 1989: 164). More recently, another non-Western type, the loosely integrated segmentary state, has been identified in the anthropological literature (e.g., Asad 1973), including many pre-modern states of sub-Saharan Africa,

Alternative pathways to power in late Postclassic Highland Mesoamerica

“…A key insight of collective action theory is that the nature and sources of a state's revenue have a profound impact on a state's political policies, especially in relation to the nature of public goods, bureaucratization, and the nature of the governing elite's power (Blanton and Fargher, 2008: pp. 250-252, Table 10-3;Fargher and Blanton, 2007;Levi, 1988). For example, in our comparative study of 30 pre-modern states, we found that a measure of the degree to which the main revenue sources are produced by commoners (e.g., what we call ''internal revenues'' such as agrarian surpluses from a free peasantry) is highly correlated with the quantity of public goods provided by the state (r = .79, p < .01, N = 30), with degree of bureaucratization (r = .61, p < .01, N = 30), and slightly less so, but still significantly with degree of control that can be exercised over the agency of governing principals (r = .44, p < .05, N = 30) (Blanton and Fargher, 2008: Table 10-3).…”

“…The teccalli was not inherited and reverted to the state to be reassigned at the death of its teuctli. Moreover, the teteuctin lacked independence and freedom and instead were tightly integrated into and controlled by the ruling council (a pattern reminiscent of republican Venice [see Fargher and Blanton, 2007]). …”

6 There is No Means by Which I Live: Livelihood and Power at the Margins of the State

“…This analysis is best viewed in light of collective action theory as specifically adapted for archaeological studies (Blanton and Fargher , ; Fargher and Blanton ), which incorporates the earlier dual processual theory, often referred to as corporate/network theory (Blanton et al. ).…”

“…Although still evolving, contemporary archaeologists have thoughtfully compared the basic structures of ancient states against each other (Blanton et al 1993;Chase, Chase, and Smith 2009;Smith and Montiel 2001). Others have successfully produced detailed, controlled comparisons with statistical analyses of similar cases (Blanton and Fargher 2008;Fargher and Blanton 2007). It is less common to use insights from contemporary cases to illuminate the past, but there are some that provide both depth and detail (Bang, Ikeguchi, and Ziche 2006;Blanton and Fargher 2008;Cameron 2013;Fargher and Blanton 2007;Feinman 2010;Ortman and Cameron 2011;Smith 2009).…”

“…Others have successfully produced detailed, controlled comparisons with statistical analyses of similar cases (Blanton and Fargher 2008;Fargher and Blanton 2007). It is less common to use insights from contemporary cases to illuminate the past, but there are some that provide both depth and detail (Bang, Ikeguchi, and Ziche 2006;Blanton and Fargher 2008;Cameron 2013;Fargher and Blanton 2007;Feinman 2010;Ortman and Cameron 2011;Smith 2009). This analysis is best viewed in light of collective action theory as specifically adapted for archaeological studies Fargher 2007, 2009;Fargher and Blanton 2007), which incorporates the earlier dual processual theory, often referred to as corporate/network theory (Blanton et al 1996).…”