Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:49:14.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Territory and Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Mark Bevir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article offers an interpretive approach to understanding Jim Bulpitt's Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. The first two parts interpret Bulpitt's text by locating it respectively in its historical and contemporaneous contexts. It argues that Territory and Power belongs in a broader movement to rethink the state in a way that accommodates the rise of new behavioural topics. Territory and Power also defends modernist empiricist approaches to institutions and other mid-level topics against the positivism and general theories of behaviouralism. The final part points to an interpretive approach to the state as an alternative to the behaviouralism and institutionalism that lurk behind Bulpitt's ideas. A thoroughly interpretive approach would decentre territory and power, revealing them to be contingent and shifting products of struggles over meanings.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 45 , Special Issue 3: Territory and Power and the Study of UK and Comparative Politics , 2010 , pp. 436 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bulpitt, J., Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation, reissued edn, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2008 Google Scholar.

2 For a brief overview of my view of interpretation see Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R., Interpreting British Governance, London, Routledge, 2003, chapter 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a longer philosophical analysis see Bevir, M., The Logic of the History of Ideas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978 Google Scholar.

4 Weber, M., ‘The Profession and Vocation of Politics’, in Weber, M., Political Writings, ed. Lassman, P. and Spiers, R., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994 Google Scholar.

5 Bluntschli, J., The Theory of the State, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885, p. 54 Google Scholar.

6 Finer, H., Theory and Practice of Modern Government, 2 vols, London, Methuen, 1932 Google Scholar; Friedrich, C., Constitutional Government and Politics, New York, Harper, 1937 Google Scholar. These two books dominated education in comparative government well into the 1950s.

7 Bryce, J., The American Commonwealth, 3 vols, London, Macmillan, 1888 Google Scholar.

8 Lowell, A., The Government of England, 2 vols, New York, Macmillan, 1908 Google Scholar.

9 Gunnell, J., ‘Making Democracy Safe for the World: Political Science between the Wars’, in Adcock, R., Bevir, M. and Stimson, S. (eds), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007, chapter 7Google Scholar.

10 Odegard, P., Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League, New York, Columbia University Press, 1928 Google Scholar; Herring, P., Group Representation before Congress, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1929 Google Scholar; Schattschneider, E., Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff, New York, Prentice-Hall, 1935 Google Scholar.

11 Beer, S., ‘Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain’, American Political Science Review, 50 (1956), pp. 1–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Beer, Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups, London, Faber, 1963; H. Eckstein, Pressure Group Politics, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1960; Mackenzie, W., ‘Pressure Groups in British Government’, British Journal of Sociology, 6 (1955), pp. 133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Finer, Anonymous Empire: A Study of the Lobby in Great Britain, London, Pall Mall Press, 1958.

12 E. Griffith (ed.), Research in Political Science, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1948, p. 224.

13 Leiserson, A., ‘Systematic Research in Political Behavior’, Social Science Research Council Items, 5 (1951), pp. 29–32 Google Scholar; Garceau, O., ‘Research in the Political Process’, American Political Science Review, 45 (1951), pp. 69–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Truman, D., ‘The Implications of Political Behavior Research’, Social Science Research Council Items, 5 (1951), pp. 37–9Google Scholar; Eldersveld, S., Heard, A., Huntington, S., Janowitz, M., Leiserson, A., McKean, D. and Truman, D., ‘Research in Political Behavior’, American Political Science Review, 46 (1952), pp. 1003–45.Google Scholar

14 ‘Committee Briefs: Political Behavior’, Social Science Research Council Items, 4 (1950), p. 20.Google Scholar

15 Almond, G., ‘A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, in Almond, G. and Coleman, J. (eds), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960 Google Scholar.

16 Bulpitt, Territory and Power, p. 57.

17 Ibid., pp. 61–2.

18 Ibid., p. 63.

19 Ibid., p. 68.

20 Ibid., p. 85.

21 Ibid., p. 65.

22 Ibid., p. 65.

23 Ibid., p. 58.

24 Ibid., p. 82.

25 Bradbury, J., ‘ Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom after Devolution’, Political Studies, 54 (2006), pp. 559–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. John, ‘Introduction: Territory and Power and the Study of Comparative Politics’, in Bulpitt, Territory and Power.

26 Friedrich, C., ‘Comments on the Seminar Report’, American Political Science Review, 47 (1953), pp. 658–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 S. Beer, ‘The Analysis of Political Systems’, in S. Beer and A. Ulam (eds), Patterns of Government: The Major Political Systems of Europe, New York, Random House, 1958.

28 Beer, S., ‘Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-Enactment’, History and Theory, 3 (1963), pp. 6–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Beer, ‘Political Science and History’, in M. Richter (ed.), Essays in Theory and History: An Approach to the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1970.

29 C. Tilly, ‘Reflections on the History of European State-Making’ and ‘Western State-Making and Theories of Political Transformation’, in C. Tilly (ed.), The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1975, pp. 3–83 and 601–38; Katzenstein, P., ‘International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States’, International Organization, 30 (1976), pp. 1–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, S., ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’, World Politics, 28 (1976), pp. 317–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol, ‘Preface’, in P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol (eds), Bringing the State Back In, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. vii–x.

31 T. Skocpol, ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research’, in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, pp. 3–4.

32 Skocpol, ‘Bringing the State Back In’; and P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, ‘On the Road Toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State’, in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In.

33 Krasner, S., ‘Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics’, Comparative Politics, 16 (1984), p. 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Katzenstein, P., Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1985 Google Scholar; Gourevitch, P., Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1986 Google Scholar.

35 Skocpol was using the language of new institutionalism by early 1987. See the comments on her talk to the 1987 Midwest Political Science Association in Levi, M., ‘Theories of Historical and Institutional Change’, Political Science, 20 (1987), p. 687.Google Scholar

36 Orren, K. and Skowronek, S., ‘Editor's Preface’, Studies in American Political Development, 1 (1986), pp. vii–viii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 For examples see respectively Bevir and Rhodes, Interpreting British Governance; Bevir, M., New Labour: A Critique, London, Routledge, 2005 Google Scholar; and Bevir, M. and Trentmann, F. (eds), Governance, Consumers, and Citizens: Agency and Resistance in Contemporary Politics, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.