State Expansion And Its Impact - Essay Example

Introduction In old feudal societies, War was not just the of gaining control over a specific group of people but rather it was a very organizedeffort to gain access to the skilled and unskilled labor which can work freely for the feudal. However, wars were also fought in the name of religion and religious authorities. However, as the concept of State hood emerged, the overall nature and causes of war changed dramatically giving it an entirely new outlook and purpose. In order to finance wars fought in the name of State, taxation was imposed along with ensuring new sources of financing the war activities. It has been argued that the emergence of nation state was basically an attempt to achieve the required level of economic growth. It is therefore generally believed that the consistent increase in the growth of economies of Europe was mostly a direct result of the emergence of nation state due to which different institutional changes took place. It is therefore generally believed that the economic growth of the Europe is mainly due to this notion of Nation State. What is also however, significant to note that economic theory often ignored the use of violence and organized crime and war to achieve the objectives of economic growth? According to Lane (1954) the use of violence created economies of scale against those enterprises which were using the same violent techniques or were engaged in achieving so called territorial monopoly. It is therefore important to discuss as to whether the expansion of State in new territories is essential for the exploitation of economies of scales or it actually result into diminishing returns. This paper will therefore discuss this notion and will present a well balanced argument as to whether the State expansion actually results into achieving the economies of scale or not. War and Nation State It has been argued that the closer connection between the war and the development of nation state started to emerge during the 15th century. This was the period in European history when most of the countries witnessed centralization of the political structures within their countries. Different countries have started to develop centralized governments and the overall concept of nation building started to emerge. What is also important to note that with the development of the centralized power structures within the societies, the overall political power of the central authorities increased too and with that power came the more power to control the economic lives of the citizens of the state also? Much of this development was also secular in nature therefore providing an ideal ground for the flourishing of economic ideas and practices in order to develop the society on more commercial basis. It has been argued that war was the instrumental factor behind the development of consolidated power structures and authority within most of the European countries.( Bean, 1973). War and Economy Earlier Stateless societies waged war in order to gain access to the set of laborers and merchants who can actually provide necessary support to the feudal class to carry out their economic activities- mostly agriculture. This was apart from the wars which were waged in the name of religion to suppress the opposition from other religions or even the violent factions of the same religion. However, as the concept of State started to develop and countries started to become States with centralized command and control, the overall purpose of war changed dramatically. With the emergence of nation state, war does not only become the element of defense against the rival countries but it also served the purpose of achieving the economic expansion. Possession of new territories not only provided access to the new markets for finished goods and procurement of cheap raw materials but they also served as the access points for providing abundant and cheap labor to fuel the industrial growth and development of the economy. The argument therefore rests with the notion that whether the war serve as the main catalyst for achieving the economic growth and development for the countries or not? It is also important to note that the urge to expand the empires also forced the Monarchs and Kings to develop the financial institutions and other economic institutions to manage the overall affairs. The increasing burden to manage the expansions and war, it became therefore necessary for the governments to borrow money and as such issue interest based bonds and other instruments to finance their ambitions. The creation of Bank of England was also the part of the same process which forced the different Britain governments to basically establish an institution which can raise the loans for it so that the war can be financed. Thus the balance of power between France and British empire was largely based upon the management of the war finances and how good institutions were at ensuring that the government continue to get the financial support necessary in order to continue to wage the war against the opponents. It is also important to note that the major sources of revenue for the governments to finance their war ambitions was the taxation of rich and other means through which they can raise the money for the war. But due to political pressures, kings and monarchs were not successful in actually imposing the higher taxes and thus had to look for ways where they can ensure the continuous and sustainable level of revenues to finance the war. This was a radical change because during the Medieval periods, the kings were supposed to finance the wars on their own however, as the size of the armies grew and the overall number of wars and battles increased, their emerged the need for imposing taxes on the masses to meet the war expenses. However, during the initial years of the emergence of taxes, these were not available easily as they were supposed to be sanctioned by a central authority before they could be collected. These were also the emergency sources of funding and were not easily available for the government or kings to collect. Bean (1973) therefore is of the opinion that once the power to collect the taxes improved, those States were able to easily centralize the power by either conquering the neighboring States or forcing them to be part of the State. Thus war and economy are interrelated subjects because the historical development of the economy and financial institutions took place owing to the war hysteria of the European countries. Industrial society and war It was generally believed that the industrial society will be more pacific in nature and unlike its predecessors; this society can only thrive if there is a peace. The relative period of peace for two most important powers of Europe i.e. UK and France during the 19th century therefore further consolidated this view that the future society will be more peaceful society without the notion of war. (Moul, 2003) What is also however, significant to note that the continuous expansion of the industrial society required access to the cheap raw materials and other sources which can help fuel the economy. It also means that the access to the cheap labor was necessary in order to ensure that the factories get the cheap manpower in order to produce goods and services which can be readily saleable in the market. It is also important to note that the continuous expansion of the industrial society also meant a continuous competition between the rivals. In order to grow and expand in industrial society, it was therefore important that the rivalry is kept to the minimum and systematic subjugation of the different rivals was considered as a noble cause to peruse under the industrial society. It was therefore also argued that the governments were basically into the business of providing the protection to the corporations in controlling their competitors and ensuring that they get what they want. It was therefore generally believed that the every act of act through either means i.e. without State expansion or not therefore resulted into the creation of monopoly as the competition was actually more costly to manage for the organizations. This discussion also lead us to the idea of imperialism or rather new imperialism where States expanded in order to gain the economic power and provide markets to their companies so that they can grow with insignificant competition to face. Imperialism and State Expansion Marxian philosophy therefore divided the industrial society based on the classes and each class has a different relation with the means of production. Thus industrial society was based on mostly two classes i.e. Proletariat and Bourgeoisie according to their relation with the means of production. The concept of the transnational classes also emerged wherein it was believed that the classes and their struggle for the organization simply transcend the borders. What is however, critical to understand that these concepts lack the essential element of Imperialism which according to Lenin was forced on other nations in order to increase the economic powers of imperialist countries. The overall concept of Imperialism indicates the expansion of great European powers into new territories and thus achieving the State expansion.( Harvey, 2003). It is also important to note that the imperialism is generally believed to be a drive by the great powers of the world to gain the economic resources of the countries and expand the markets for their own countries. This therefore indicates that the State expansion was directly related with the achievement of economic power. Economies of Scale and State Expansion The question therefore also arises as to whether this expansion of State actually led to the achievement of economies of scale or not? According to Lane, the systematic production of violence by State therefore ensured that the huge of economies of scale are generated for the organizations. State therefore started to work on two different types of rents i.e. monopoly profits and protection rent. Protection rent was specifically collected to safeguard and protect the merchants from their rivals and ensure that they have uncontrolled access to the raw materials and cheap labor.( Lane, 1958). This argument is also deeply rooted into the hypothesis that as the governments grew in their power, they increased the extent to which they can provide protection to their subjects. Thus the creation of the so called monopolies of force was one of the main elements which allowed the organizations to actually expand at greater pace and accumulate growth at higher pace.( Tilly, 1985). It is also important to note that the economies of scale achieved in production of the force however, the diseconomies of scales were observed in the command and control of this force. Thus the technological innovation coupled with the large and brutal force ensured that the State expansion resulted into the achievement of economies of scale to some extent however, due to limited command and leadership capabilities, the advantage was lost and the diminishing returns occurred at some phase of the transition. References 1. Bean, R (1973). War and the Birth of Nation State. The Journal of Economic History. 33 (1), pp.203-221. 2. Harvey, D (2003). New Imperialism. 1st. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3. Lane, F (1958). Economic Consequences of Organized Crime. The Journal of Economic History. 18 (4), pp.401-417. 4. Moul, W (2003). Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989. Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989. 47 (4), pp.468-489. 5. Tilly, C (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime [online]. [Accessed 10th Nov 2010]. Available from: . Read More