The Strategic-Relational View of the State

Abstract

This paper seeks to highlight the main elements of the`strategic-relational' approach to (Marxist) state theory, developed particularly by Bob Jessop. The legacy of Nicos Poulantzas in particular is singled out for its importance in laying the foundations for such an approach. This is followed by a discussion of Jessop and his development of many ideas bequeathed by Poulantzas, culminating in various moves toward a strategic-relational analysis. These moves are then critically assessed, with some wider thoughts on the approach oered in conclusion # Political Studies Association 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers,

Geopolitics of the Knowledge-Based Economy

“…The above-mentioned perspective draws on the strategic-relational theory of the state which highlights that the state as a political and social organization is undergirded by economic processes (see, e.g. Jessop 1990Jessop , 2016; see also Kelly 1999). The state -and in some cases even a supranational polity like the EU -occupies a central stage in the socialization of economic orders.…”

Politics of power: Engaging with the structure-agency debate from a class-based perspective

“…In spite of the alleged ‘application’ of SRA in the study of capitalist regulation, the state, political economic geography or cultural political economy (Jessop, 1990, 2002, 2008, 2013, 2016; Sum and Jessop, 2006a, 2006b, 2013), the accuracy of its application has been questioned elsewhere (e.g. Hay, 1994; Kelly, 1999; Staricco, 2016; Van Heur, 2010) because Jessop does not define intermediate steps to render the SRA operational for a historical analysis that moves from the abstract to the concrete and from the simple to the complex (Hay, 1994: 331–332). This article argues that Jessop has not been able to provide a thoroughly strategic-relational study of particular structure-conjunctures because the SRA is fundamentally unworkable.…”

“…Conversely, those articles that have criticised Jessop’s ontology from critical and Marxist perspectives have only targeted his more historically concrete levels of abstraction, namely capitalist regulation and the production of space from both post-structuralist (Daly, 2004) and Open Marxist perspectives (e.g. Charnock, 2010), the material basis of the capitalist state (Kelly, 1999), or, more recently, the role of semiotics in the study of Cultural Political Economy (Staricco, 2016; Van Heur, 2010). However, none have engaged with Jessop’s SRA from a historical materialist perspective that brings the dialectics of the structure-agency down to a class perspective.…”

Critical Theories of the State: Governmentality and the Strategic‐Relational Approach

“…57 However, this, in turn, prompts the concern that there might be a problematic disconnection between abstract research agendas and concrete analyses in Jessop's work that would also question the success of his research strategy of spiraling back and forth between abstract-general and/or the concrete-complex levels mentioned in the exposition of the approach. 58 I imagine that Jessop would respond to the charge of functionalism by pointing out the importance he accords to path-dependencies as well as various selectivities of the discursive and institutional strategic terrain. As he notes, " .…”