All states are products of historical trajectories. The political domain is historically constituted, and therefore a historical enquiry is a theoretical prerequisite for a deeper analysis of the nature of the state. The actual process of class formation and restructuring in Asia, Africa and Latin America as a consequence of the impact of long-term colonial domination has been historically distinct from the capitalist countries of the west. There is a broad agreement among state theorists that the theorisation of the nature of the post-colonial state has to be adapted to the very different circumstances that prevail in the Latin American, Asian and African societies. The nature of post colonial states has been analyzed by scholars from different perspectives. The two prominent perspectives are

Modernization perspective –  F W Riggs and Gunnar Myrdal.

• F.W. Riggs has used the term ‘prismatic societies’ for these states. Prismatic society denotes societies in transition. (i.e.) traditional societies moving towards modernization.
• Gunnar Myrdal is famous for the concept of soft-state used for India. He suggests that India will never be successful in eradicating poverty. Because India is a soft state. Soft state is a state which is unable to implement the laws. Soft on law-breakers. India is a soft state, according to Gunnar Myrdal. The outcome of soft state is lawlessness and corruption. Failure to implement the developmental programs. He mentions about Pandit Nehru that even charismatic leaders like Nehru could not enforce the land reforms.

Marxist perspective

i. Instrumentalist approach (dependency theories)

Given by the scholars of third world countries. Primarily Latin America and Africa. This theory is relevant to understand the nature of states in these regions. Even can be applied for middle east. Proponents: A G Frank (LA), Sameer Amin (Egypt), Immanuel Wallerstein.

• They categorize state into two groups. – Core State, Peripheral state.
• These states are interlinked – they are interlinked because of capitalism becoming ‘world system’.
• Core countries are advanced countries – They reflect the concentration of economic power, political power, technological power, cultural power, military power… The states in core countries are the instruments of their bourgeoise class /capitalist class.
• Peripheral states – These states are in the state of ‘dependency’. Dependency denote a) Unequal exchange.  b) uneven development
• As a result of dependency, there is a development of underdevelopment (poverty). These states are not autonomous, they are instrument of the states in core countries, which in turn are the instruments of their own bourgeoise class.
• According to them, the only way these countries can achieve development is by de-linking themselves from the international economy controlled by core countries and focusing on ‘national autonomous development’.

ii. Structural Approach / Relative autonomy approach

• This theory for post-colonial states is given by Pakistani scholar. Hamza Alvi. His theory is applicable for the states in south Asia, particularly for Pakistan. According to Hamza Alvi, state in Pakistan is ‘overdeveloped’.
• He believes that the instrumentalist theory will not be the right approach. The state in core countries can be called as the instrument of the bourgeoise class, however states in these societies cannot be called as an instrument of a particular class. Specific historical condition has made the states in these countries as autonomous, most powerful class in itself.
• The power in these societies is concentrated in the state (executive/civil services). e.g. Pakistan can be called as ‘military-bureaucratic’ oligarchy. Similarly, India was also known as ‘inspector raj’, though the change is taking place in India under the forces of globalization (rise of civil society and judicial activism).
• Overdeveloped state is an evolution of modern nation state in developed countries.
• States in western countries are equally developed. This is with reference to basic structure. e.g. When it was a state society, it was city state. When economic structure became feudal, the nature of state also became feudal. When economic structure became modern (capitalist), state also became modern. Two principle characteristic of modern nation state are fixed territory and centralized authority.
• In post-colonial societies, modern state have not evolved naturally. It has been an imported institution. Imported by the colonial masters. Hence there is a mismatch in the level of development. Economic structure (basic structure) remains traditional, political structure (part of super-structure) became modern. Hence political structure is overdeveloped in comparison to the economic structure. e.g. India China have been civilizational states. It was British who defined the boundaries of India and introduced centralized institutions. The term Bonapartism is used to describe the nature of overdeveloped state.