Summary: Evans is looking at whether or not the ‘eclipse of the state’ is likely. He concludes that it is not, however it is being impacted by globalization. In particular, globalization impacts the state in two ways: i) the context created by the new global economy, and; ii)the growing global hegemony of Anglo-American ideology. First, success in the global economy is dependent on private actors not on states, and the state is more \’at the mercy\’ of private financial traders. However, the role of the state may not be diminished (see East Asian states – strong states may be the only possible counter to strong TNCs). Second, the primacy of the Washington Consensus does not necessarily lead to an eclipse of the state, even if primacy is put towards the market. Instead, the role of the state changes to providing stability for TNCs and maximizing returns from the global financial system. Theoretically, neoclassical economic theory predicts the eclipse of the state, however broader trends in economic theory reinforce the need for the persistence of the state. Same is true about theories of civil society.
Important Insights: Links with Nettl about the changing nature of state or stateness. Importance of recognizing that the state system isn’t necessarily permanent and unchanging.
Critique: Evans doesn’t adequately treat the problem of the state system being subsumed by the international economic order. If the notion of ‘stateness’ now heavily depends on non-state actors, a treatment of their roles should be more detailed than what is present here.