The Concept of Government

Landes defines government as “the institutional organization of political power within a given territory” (Landes 8). It holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in its territory. Government controls and regulates societal conflict that arises between individuals and groups. According to Dahl and Landes, such conflict is primarily the result of a scarcity of resources, and secondarily social diversity, language, race, and gender differences.

‘Government’ includes physical elements such as government buildings (e.g. the White House), personnel (e.g. cabinet officers, civil servants), as well as governmental processes (e.g. an election). An example of a government is the American Government, which includes the entire government institution in America (federal, state, municipal), its buildings, personnel, and processes.

Implicit to Landes’ definition of government, unfortunately, is the understanding that the scarcity and desireability of resources somehow necessitates their distribution. The first such resource he lists is wealth. By failing to define the value of, and entitlement to resources as directly related to the extent to which, and by whom they are developed, I’m certain Landes will go on to list the usual gamut of government interferences as legitimate functions.

The Features of Government

Landes describes government as ubiquitous, multiple, necessary, varied, democratized, and globalized.

1. Government is ubiquitous. Geographically, most of the earth is divided into governmental units (nation-states). Practically, most areas of our lives also fall under government domain. “The taxes we pay, the conditions of our workplaces, the nature of the products we buy, our medical treatment, the procedures of birth, marriage, and death are all regulated by government” (Landes, 7).

2. Government is multiple. Contrary to the popular view of government as a cohesive organization, it is actually a plural phenomenon. This refers to the various levels of government (federal, provincial / state, municipal) and further, the multiple units at each level. In this respect, it is more accurate to state that a Canadian citizen is under the domain of governments, not a government. This becomes significant when we observe that “different governmental levels and units with varying goals rarely act with unanimity in the making of public policy” (9).

3. Government is necessary, as the institutional means of controlling and regulating conflict within society. Here Landes again states that the scarcity of resources leads to conflict, and that “given the scarcity of resources and the ensuing conflict over their distribution, government becomes the means for resolving …conflicts…[and decides] which groups, regions, or individuals receive the benefit of government, and which sectors of society bear the costs of these allocative decisions” (10). He goes on to describe what he calls the “creative mechanisms” of government: the promotion of educational opportunity (financial aid, training programs), etc. Government is utilized as a regulator of conflict and a ‘creator of values.’

“The ubiquitous and multiple nature of government stems, in part, from its attempt to regulate an ever-increasing number of policy areas in an ever-expanding political sphere” (11).

I contend that government is necessary solely because the individual rights of citizens need to be protected. When the government begins making ‘allocative decisions’ (especially with regard to wealth), it is clearly violating its citizens’ rights.

4. Government is varied. Numerous types of governmental structures have been devised to carry out its regulative and ‘creative’ functions. There are numerous ways (typologies) of classifying these governmental types. Here are a few that are particularly relevant to comparisons between the Canadian, American, and British governments:

• Governmental Types (i.e. autocratic, republican, and totalitarian)
• Federal vs. Unitary Systems (i.e. how power is divided within the government itself)
• Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems

5. Government is democratized. Increasingly, governments the world over are, or are in the process of becoming, democratized. Liberal democracy is now recognized globally as the most ‘legimate’ political system, demonstrated by the fact that even “non-democratic states…which have no intention of becoming liberal-democracies, adopt democratic reforms, such as elections, to increase their legitimacy” (19).

6. Government is globalized. Landes defines globalization as “the interdependence of political units, such as nation-states, in terms of their economies, their societies, and their political practices” (19). As countries become increasingly democratized and industrialized, international bodies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are being endowed with greater political authority. In some respects, governments are losing power (or delegating decision-making functions, depending on how you look at it) to these organizations.

Landes’ Two Functions of Government

Landes suggests that a government has two main functions: to control and regulate societal conflict (attributable to a scarcity of resources), and solving important social problems by means of particular policies; that is, programs of action.

Conflict in Society

As mentioned earlier, Landes attributes societal conflict primarily to what he calls “a fundamental fact of life: scarcity” (9). He paints the picture of a community in which there are is a limited amount of wealth, natural resources, and status. Groups in society, divided by race, language, income levels, region, and religious differences all vie for these ’scarce’ resources.

“Given the scarcity of resources and the ensuing conflict over their distribution, government becomes the means for resolving these conflicts by certain agreed-upon rules of political process” (10).

He goes on to describe how all governments mediate over scarce resources and foster social harmony. Certain agreed-upon and binding rules are established for conflict mediation, and for determining the ‘proper’ distribution of resources among groups. Further, in its ‘purposive’ role, the government institutes programs to promote health and welfare, “alleviate the negative economic results of a capitalistic system” (10), equalize educational opportunity, and create a sense of national unity.

Government: Less vs. More

Landes’ treatment of politics is largely empirical, which keeps him from revealing his own opinion regarding a proper function of government. However, I remain skeptical given his description of societal conflict and how it gives rise to the necessity for resource distribution.

Regarding the ‘creative’ side of government, Landes words carefully. For example:

• government can be creative, or at least attempt to be;
• [government] wants to achieve certain goals;
• governments seek to be creative mechanisms;
• and governments attempt to “alleviate the negative economic results of a capitalistic system.”

He also notes that the creative side of government especially leads to political conflict, due to value differences between groups.

However, again, Landes treatment of conflict, as well as his apparent agreement that a capitalistic system has negative economic results, leads me to believe that on the limited vs. intrusive government spectrum, he would fall much closer to the latter.

Personally, of course, I believe wholeheartedly that a government limited to protecting the rights of its citizens, from domestic and international force, is the only legitimate form of government possible. As Landes himself suggests, the distribution of resources and ‘active’ social programs necessitates the confiscation of resources from a sector of society. To do this, government uses force, or the threat of it, against its own citizens. I disagree completely with any sort of ‘creative’ function of government as Landes defines it.