While scholars disagree about the causes of the emergence of the welfare states in Europe, Charles Tilly makes a bold and influential claim that states formed as a result of war-making and preparation for war which “created the internal structures of the state” (Tilly 76). In his work, Tilly acknowledges that the key factor in the development of European states was military rivalry and incessant warfare. Tilly’s quote, “war made the state and the state made war” explains the reduction of the number of states in early modern Europe; only the states that developed strong state capabilities developed during the period of war-making and warfare competition. Tilly’s argument emphasizes how states were inadvertently by-products of war and formed as a response to enemy threats. He sees war as
…show more content…
Jeffrey Herbst argues that while lack of interstate war has been central to state weakness in Africa, state development in Africa and other parts of the Third World have “all but ignored the important role that war can play” (Herbst 117). War has certainly not been foreign to Africa, but war between independent states has been rare. In addition, Miguel Centeno demonstrates how war-making in Latin America didn’t have the same progressive impact it had in Europe due to the intervening conditions of trade and customs. In Latin America, there was a lack of foundational level of administration in addition to other resources of funding. Centeno refutes Tilly’s argument by proving that war-making can have different political consequences, and that war can only have a positive effect if it can build on pre-existing conditions. Centeno ultimately shows how in Latin America, war led to political disintegration rather than political development, and emphasizes that it is only those which have a strong foundational state which war can build on and
Jeffrey Herbst argues that while lack of interstate war has been central to state weakness in Africa, state development in Africa and other parts of the Third World have “all but ignored the important role that war can play” (Herbst 117). War has certainly not been foreign to Africa, but war between independent states has been rare. In addition, Miguel Centeno demonstrates how war-making in Latin America didn’t have the same progressive impact it had in Europe due to the intervening conditions of trade and customs. In Latin America, there was a lack of foundational level of administration in addition to other resources of funding. Centeno refutes Tilly’s argument by proving that war-making can have different political consequences, and that war can only have a positive effect if it can build on pre-existing conditions. Centeno ultimately shows how in Latin America, war led to political disintegration rather than political development, and emphasizes that it is only those which have a strong foundational state which war can build on and