Abstract

In their contribution Paul du Gay and Alan Scott challenge the proliferation of terms used to describe current state formations and de-emphasize over-exaggerated claims about contemporary epochal social change. I welcome this intervention and agree with much of what they have to say. In particular, to draw attention to the differences between "state form" and "governmental regime" is a very useful clarificatory move, one that serves their purpose well in confronting the perils of terminological inexactitude. My comments fall under two main headings: first the analysis of - and importance they attribute to - the "constitutional state" in their historical narrative, and second issues associated with the role of the state in possible current conjunctural ruptures associated with tensions brought about by what is broadly termed "globalization."