So this is a great question.
State capacity is an annoying political science term, and classically the definition is something like “a state’s ability to achieve its goals.” If you’re assessing early states, you’re asking a couple basic questions about state capacity:
- Can they collect taxes? Or grain?
- Can they muster men for an army?
If they can, they have “high state capacity” in those domains. As you get closer to the present day, states try to do more things, so you’re measuring the state’s “capacity” to do those things: like providing a social safety net, or to regulate a given market. It often implies a particular focus on implementation. The king says, “Let it be done.” Okay. Now what? How does “it” actually get “done”?
Also, state capacity gets used in the modern day to talk about governance generally, at multiple levels. Although NYC is a city, you could talk about the fact that trash gets dumped out on the street as a failure of state capacity.
State capacity is a pretty contestable term, obviously. Do we want more state capacity? For most people, it depends on the domain: maybe you want the state to be better at deporting people who are here illegally, but worse at regulating crypto. Or vice versa.
I write
statecraft.pub for a couple reasons. For one, I’m just interested in how policy actually happens. I think the stories of the people who are told by Congress or the President “go do this thing” can actually be quite fascinating.
But I’m also pretty convinced that a lot of things people think are problems with policy are actually problems with state capacity. Often, the American people have tasked the government with doing something, and we just don’t do it very well, because we haven’t built a system that would be able to do it well.
So the project is an attempt to figure out if that’s true — and how we can fix American state capacity if it is.
you guys… what is state capacity… I’ve been afraid to ask