Organized crime is fully represented by the protection rackets. War making and state making uses protection rackets as a typical example of organized crime. Organized crime is influenced by the expanding impact or role played by the powerful countries in the supplying of military organizations and arms to the third world countries. The government offers both internal and external protection to its citizens and charges a price for the service hence qualifying it as racketeering. The power holders extract resources that are relevant in the process of war making and state making from the population to which he or she has full control over and contributes to capital accumulation.
For productivity, the community has to set in place a peaceful order that would embrace work satisfactory. On the other hand, the presence of violence disadvantages the people since they lose their products and the incentive of producing more products. This theory therefore advocates for formation of small groups because they lack incentives and the people are not in a good position to generate surpluses that would justify a reasonable cost to cover for their security. It simply means that a monopolized theft on a certain domain and extraction of taxes would have an incentive to the victim of producing more products. That is the victims would be settled and secure to conduct their activities since the stationary bandit would provide production within the domain he collects taxes.
According to Robert, (2009) that the major factor that made the sovereign territorial state to be popular and prevail over the other political forum is because it was set up an effective mechanism that prevented its members from defection and reduced the cost of internal transactions. It is also credited for having made a credible comment to the other existing units. The discrepancy on matters touching the political arrangements and trans local market are handle by the new forms of organizations. In a general view the forms of organizations increases and improves the demand with the main objective of changing the existing order to suit their preferences hence the expansion of the resources and revenue.
Charles, (1985) expounds on the issue of organized crime in relation to the war making and state making process. It highlighted the relevance of the national state on how the claim over the means of violence in a particular population. Its main concern is the means of violence in the changes and the growth of any peculiar type of government. In this context, legitimacy is considered as a factor use by the authorities to ascertain the credibility of the decision made by a particular authority. It thus implies that the powers are more effectives to the person who posses them than to that person who is require to abide to the powers and rules set in place. The violence cause by the state is on a large scale and is normally very efficient and effective getting a wide range of assent from the target population. The legitimate and illegitimate violence has based itself mostly in the top powers. Organized crime is evident where the state commission privateers, pay the bandit and motivate its troops to carry out atrocity activities to the civilian population. Another common methodology used to facilitate the organized crime that is war making and state making is ensuring that the government protects his people against demobilized ship and other vice taking place.
The forms of political set up or government is a determining factor for the level of productivity and the living standards of the people. In a dictatorship or stationary bandit perspective, it gives the victim an incentive to strive in generating more income without having to concern themselves with other threats. Since all victims serve as a source of taxes, the bandit would ensure their safety is guaranteed. On another perspective, the roving bandit does not contribute or influence for any incentive to increase production rate or even accumulate any assets that can be stolen. It indicates that government, which operates with a larger group, is as a result of rational self - interest among the individual capable to organize violence of greatest capacity. An autocrat has the duty of providing public goods to his or her domain since he or she has an encompassing interest. It implies that depending on the level of interest a person has in the society determines the level of incentive to be taken in order to provide the public goods.
New institutional history along with history sociology has covered the importance of the existence of a good interaction between the hierarchies and the markets main to enforce the agreement and at the same arbitrate the disputes. A territorial state has a fair competition and come out to be a very successful. Its success is facilitated by the fact that other forms faced the challenges or consequence of localism hence lost their economic integration. The territorial state stands out as a preferred form because most social and political actors opt for institution with reduced uncertainty within either their internal and external surrounding or environment. The key factor that has contributed to its prevalence is due to its break through the waging war.
In both Richard, (1985) and Mancur, (1993) they argue that the government or those people entitle the power to rule the community (stationary bandit and the autocratic leader) is considered to cause war or threats to the people and in return gets paid to tackle the issues of security. This position the government in a state referred to as a protection racket. The three readings shed more light on matters that affects both the small and large groups hence determining whether incentive for more production. It gives the government the role and duty to ensure that, there is safety for the citizen who pays for taxes and pays for the protection services. The three reading covers on the dictatorship concept for instance, the warlords were in charge of all the territories they conquered during the war. In order to avoid the emergence of anarchy they took over the leadership of the territory. Another similarity is that both Richard, (1985) and Mancur, (1993) share a common ideology of governance. In a general point of view both government highlights systems which, encompasses the self- interest that is it poses a threat to the general public in order to obtain or charge a certain fee for protection and provide public good with a motivate of increasing the people’s incentive to produce goods hence getting an opportunity to collect taxes. The readings are meant to show that war facilitates manipulation and exploitation of the people by the government. It is also used as a mechanism to implement or obtain the set goals and objectives of the government.
There is a conflicting argument on how sovereign territorial states prevail over the contemporary rivals. Robert, (2009) major his argument of the different political form affect the performance and activities of an individual or group in the society. It expounds on the critical feature of a given modern state. Sovereignty is on the principle that any form of authority is a never subject to another authority and limited by spatial terms. In other terms, it describes in the way political order is made up of crosscutting and different jurisdiction of aspiring king, church, the emperor, and feudal lords. The new institution history cover the entire concept why most individual seek for hierarchy while they are conducting an economic transaction. It also provides guidance and important information to the political elites that desire to expand their rule.
In the other readings, the discussion on the leadership and governance mainly sticks to the dictatorial kind of leadership. That is the bandit takes the top most power in the community, giving them a platform to collect taxes from the citizen. In this case, the citizen seems to have run short of option therefore has to oblige with the taxes levied on the goods produced. In different point of the government charges, her citizen for provision of protection from an internal and external threats. The major conflicting theory is the difference that arises is that the taxes collected from the citizen provide incentive for the more production whereas the fees charge for the provision of protection does not play any role in incentive for production.
The readings bear an important reflection of the current political and world affairs. It shows on how the country starts a conflict or war within or outside its boundaries aiming at achieving a certain goal in terms of being paid to calm the situation. This explains the current global trends where certain nations in war get support from foreign nation through supply of arm or by deploying the military personnel to calm the situation. The major cause for such aid is the aim of achieving a certain political or economic gain in return for the protection offered. Its relevance is applicable in the agricultural sector whereby taxes levied provide incentive for farmer and other business entities to produce more in order to make substantial profit after tax is deducted. It implies that small groups can easily be organized to realize a collective action through countless observations. The kind of leadership determines how the world affairs affect the people. For instance, countries practicing dictatorship are more likely to be less developed because the citizens are limited by the term set by government. In conclusion, the organized crime has played a vital role in the making of a state. The forms of government are used to show how effective and efficient sovereign territorial state made its way to the top. The war making and stating making are evident in an occasion where countries initiative war with their enemies in order to take over the source of revenue such as minerals. This would improve their economy by increasing the supply hence the boosting the international relation.
References
Carter, C. E. (2005). The Territorial papers of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O..
Evans, P. (2002). Bringing the state back (4th Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Lehman, J. F. (2001). Making war: the 200-year-old battle between the president and Congress over how America goes to war (3rd Ed.). New York: Scribner's ;.
Spruyt, H. (2009). Institutional selection in the in the international relation: state anarchy as order. International organization, 48 (04), 527-557.
Tames, R. (2003). Dictatorship. Chicago: Heinemann Library.
Mancur, O. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy and democracy. APSA, 87 (3), 567-576.
