Joel Migdal presents a fascinating, or at least engaging, investigation of the power relationship between states and the societies they supposedly govern. Beyond arguing for the central role thrust upon the developing state by the international community (more specifically the U.N. and the Bretton Woods organizations), Migdal emphatically stresses the importance and failure of the state in mobilizing the societies over which they preside. This abandonment of the traditional approaches to examining the problems of development presents a refreshing perspective to field that seems mired in somewhat static, institutionalized, if not outright crusty theories.

Although clearly eschewing the traditional theories of development (for which he into be credited), Migdal cannot help but to look to Europe for examples of successful states engaging their societies in a vein similar to that of the Modernitzationists. In fact, Migdal picks out three "tentacles" intrinsic to the early modern European state that allowed it to channel social behavior: strong standing armies, an established judicial system, and an efficient tax-collection apparatus. Migdal credits the failure of states to effectively develop themselves with the absence of these and/or innovative ways of engaging society and instead reverting to the "politics of survival".

Although he supports his assertions with ample data, I feel that the state-side emphasis in approaching questions of development might be slightly limiting of our imagination, even if it is a fresh departure from other models. While Migdal certainly makes an excellent case for state engagement of societies, he overlooks the certain social movements and institutions that have developed outside the auspices of the state but still have proven beneficial in realizing the goals of development. Though they might be small and rather uncommon, small scale pooling of resources and entry into fair trade initiatives have proven very effective in raising the living standards of limited populations. Admittedly, for such social organizations to have any hope of truly flourishing, they must enjoy a secure environment and sufficiently maintained (much less present) infrastructure – ultimately responsibilities of the state. Thus, while Migdal correctly note the lack of state engagement, I would suggest a less antagonistic characterization of society in impeding the state’s ability to impose the rules that are to channel societal behavior; while empowerment of the state is a good a necessary component, we should be wary of overlooking the ingenuity of the people.