State Functions and Citizenship Rights in Political Sociology: A Contemporary Analysis

The state has never been a static institution. From its earliest incarnation as a guardian of order and security, it has evolved into one of the most complex social actors in modern life – funding schools, running hospitals, regulating markets, and managing welfare. Yet this expansion has never been straightforward or without tension. At the heart of every debate about what the state should do lies a fundamental question: how do you balance the freedom of the individual against the needs of society as a whole? Understanding how that question has been answered – and re-answered – across the past two centuries tells us a great deal about the world we live in today.

The minimal state: order, security, and nothing more 🔗

In the early modern period and through much of the 19th century, the dominant view of the state was deliberately narrow. Rooted in Enlightenment liberalism – particularly the ideas of John Locke and later Robert Nozick – the so-called minimal state was understood to have four core functions: protecting individual rights, enforcing contracts, providing national defense, and administering justice. The government’s role was to maintain order and protect private property, not to intervene in economic or social affairs.

This framework aligned neatly with the rise of laissez-faire capitalism in industrializing Europe and North America. The nation-state became the dominant form of political organization during the 19th century, consolidating sovereignty and territorial control even as its functional scope remained deliberately limited. The assumption was that free markets, left to their own devices, would produce prosperity for all. The state was, in effect, a referee – not a player.

But industrialization exposed the limits of this model quickly. Rapid urbanization brought poor working conditions, child labor, and public health crises. Thinkers like T.H. Green argued that the mere absence of restraint proved inadequate when many individuals lacked resources to meaningfully exercise freedom. This shifted emphasis toward what philosophers call positive liberty – the idea that true freedom requires not just protection from interference, but access to the conditions needed for human flourishing. Progressive reforms in education, labor rights, and social security emerged directly from this reconceptualization.

The welfare state: expanding state functions in the 20th century 🔗

The 20th century marked a decisive break from the minimal state model. Economic crises – most dramatically the Great Depression of the 1930s – made clear that markets could not self-correct in times of catastrophic failure. The laissez-faire tenet of self-help was replaced by the belief that it is the duty of government to help those who are unable to help themselves. The two World Wars further accelerated this shift, as governments across the globe began building comprehensive social safety nets including unemployment insurance, public pensions, and universal healthcare.

Three areas where state functions became particularly pronounced were education, health, and welfare. In education, the state began funding and regulating public schools to ensure all children had access to basic learning. Public health initiatives – vaccination programs, sanitation improvements, and later national health services – raised life expectancy significantly. Welfare programs, from social security to housing assistance, ensured that citizens were not left destitute during times of economic hardship or personal crisis.

This was not purely altruistic. A healthy, educated population was also a more productive workforce – a fact that governments and employers both recognized. The post-war welfare state aimed to protect individuals from the pressures of the labor market, decommodifying basic needs like healthcare and housing so that access did not depend entirely on income. Sociologists describe this process as decommodification – a shift that fundamentally altered the relationship between citizens and the state, embedding social rights alongside civil and political ones.

Individual liberty vs. collective good: a permanent tension 🔗

The expansion of state functions did not happen without pushback. The tension between individual liberty and the collective good is one of the most enduring fault lines in political thought – and it became especially charged as the welfare state grew. In a democracy, government is expected to establish conditions of liberty and order that enable each person to seek fulfillment on their own terms, but determining where those conditions end and where individual autonomy begins is not simple.

Critics of the expanding state argued that government programs created dependency, increased bureaucracy, and raised taxes in ways that curtailed economic freedom. From a classical liberal standpoint, any intervention beyond the minimal state risked undermining the very freedom it claimed to protect. Mandatory vaccination programs, quarantine laws, and labor regulations were all challenged on grounds of individual liberty. The tension was not abstract – it played out in courts, parliaments, and public debates across the developed world.

Defenders of state intervention countered that without active government support, formal rights mean little to those without the resources to exercise them. Under the neoliberal model, certain citizens are deprived of the right to enjoy public goods that result from their collective activity, while others accumulate private advantages. From this perspective, the state is not the enemy of liberty but a potential guarantor of it – provided it acts in the interests of all citizens, not just the wealthy few.

Neoliberalism and the rollback of state functions 🔗

By the late 20th century, a new ideological force reshaped the terms of this debate. Neoliberalism – the political and economic philosophy associated with figures like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan – pushed back hard against the welfare state model. Neoliberalism is associated with a set of economic liberalization policies including privatization, deregulation, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending, all designed to expand the role of the private sector at the expense of the state.

The argument was straightforward: government programs were expensive, inefficient, and created perverse incentives. The neoliberal agenda proposed cutting social spending, privatizing public services – from utilities to healthcare – and deregulating markets to unleash private enterprise. Neoliberalism aimed to dismantle the welfare state and reinstate a free market, ending what it described as citizens’ “dependency” on welfare.

The impact was significant and uneven. The Keynesian-welfarist model that had been in force since after the war began to collapse in Western Europe, especially in the United Kingdom during the Thatcher administration (1979-1990) and in the United States during the Reagan administration (1981-1989). Welfare entitlements were cut, public industries privatized, and labor unions weakened. In the Global South, similar pressures came from international institutions: developing countries seeking loans from the IMF and World Bank had to agree to institutional reforms including privatization, trade liberalization, and reductions in government spending.

The social costs of neoliberal reform 🔗

The social consequences were widely documented. A key goal of neoliberalism was to cut public expenditures for social services such as health and education, including reducing welfare programs and the safety net for the poor. Critics noted that this framework did not recognize social and economic rights – such as access to adequate food, housing, and healthcare – as legitimate entitlements at all. Income inequality grew sharply in countries that pursued aggressive neoliberal reforms. Economic displacement, reduction of state welfare, and rising income inequality are widely described as consequences of neoliberal reforms and economic globalization.

Some scholars distinguish between two phases of neoliberalism. The first, associated with Thatcher and Reagan, involved active dismantling of welfare institutions. The second, associated with figures like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in the 1990s, represented a softer variant – sometimes called the “Third Way” – that integrated market-oriented thinking with an ethical discourse of social justice. Social investment – in education, skills training, and employment – replaced unconditional welfare, reframing social spending as economic productivity rather than collective obligation.

Globalization and its effects on state-citizen relationships 🔗

Neoliberalism did not operate in isolation. It intersected with – and was accelerated by – globalization: the deepening integration of national economies into a single global market. As capital became increasingly mobile, states found themselves competing with each other to attract investment by offering lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more flexible labor markets. This dynamic placed downward pressure on social spending precisely when it was most needed.

Globalization also complicated the very meaning of citizenship. Traditionally, citizenship was a national construct – a set of rights and responsibilities defined by a relationship with a specific state. But the movement of people, capital, and information across borders has made that framework harder to sustain. Nation-states play a key role in determining insiders and outsiders – setting the rules and conditions under which certain groups can or cannot access working rights, welfare entitlements, residency rights, and political representation. Migrants, refugees, and undocumented workers increasingly find themselves in a grey zone, where formal citizenship offers little protection and market status determines access to basic goods.

The rise of transnational institutions – the WTO, IMF, EU, and others – also shifted some decision-making power away from national governments. Citizens increasingly found that major economic policies were being shaped by bodies they had not elected and could not easily hold accountable. Democratic governments need to establish democratic procedures at both national and international levels to secure collective support for a political and social safety net – a challenge that remains largely unresolved.

Contemporary state functions: what remains and what has changed 🔗

Despite decades of neoliberal pressure, the state has not withered away. In most countries, governments still provide – though often in reduced or partially privatized form – education, healthcare, social insurance, and infrastructure. What has changed is the logic behind these functions. The post-war welfare state aimed to include individuals in economic life by protecting them from the market; the new welfare state aims to include them in the market through human capital enhancement. The emphasis has shifted from security to employability, from entitlement to investment.

Modern states are characterized by welfare functions that provide social services like healthcare, education, and social security to enhance citizens’ well-being – but these are increasingly conditional, means-tested, or delivered through private providers. The state has not abandoned the field but has reorganized it. Whether this reorganization serves citizens equally, or primarily those with the resources to navigate market-based systems, is one of the defining political questions of the 21st century.

New challenges have also emerged. Climate change, digital surveillance, platform economies, and mass migration are forcing states to develop new regulatory capacities. Rising populist movements – in part a reaction to the inequalities generated by globalization and neoliberal reform – are demanding that states reassert control over borders, markets, and social provision. The tension between individual liberty and collective good has not disappeared; it has taken on new dimensions.

The state-citizen relationship: evolving and contested 🔗

What the past two centuries make clear is that state functions are not fixed. They expand and contract in response to economic crises, ideological shifts, social movements, and international pressures. The welfare state did not emerge inevitably – it was built through political struggle and dismantled through political choice. Similarly, the neoliberal rollback was not a natural economic law but a set of deliberate policy decisions with winners and losers.

At stake in all of these debates is something fundamental: the relationship between the citizen and the state is a dynamic interplay of rights and responsibilities, freedom and authority, individual conscience and collective good. Citizens are not simply subjects of state power – they are also agents who shape it through elections, movements, and everyday civic participation. The extent to which the state fulfills its obligations to citizens depends not just on ideology or economics, but on the political will that citizens collectively generate.

What do you think? As neoliberal policies have reduced state welfare functions in many countries, who bears the greatest cost – and is the current balance between individual liberty and collective responsibility one that societies can sustain? With globalization continuing to erode the power of national governments to protect citizens from market forces, what new forms of democratic accountability might be needed at the international level?

References

1. https://www.dalvoy.com/en/upsc/mains/previous-years/2013/political-science-interanational-relations-paper-ii/minimal-state-individual-liberty
2. https://www.polisciconnect.com/the-evolution-of-state-in-political-science/
3. https://banotes.org/political-theory/exploring-complex-nature-liberty-definitions-distinctions/
4. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html
5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-sociology-archives-europeennes-de-sociologie/article/neoliberalism-economization-and-the-paradox-of-the-new-welfare-state/B3D839010EDEAF4F3949D9396D46017E
6. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/understanding-democracy-hip-pocket-guide/common-good/
7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0151-3
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
9. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-10606-4_2
10. https://zapruderworld.org/journal/past-volumes/volume-3/the-welfare-state-decline-and-the-rise-of-neoliberalism-since-the-1980s-some-approaches-between-latin-americas-core-and-peripheral-countries/
11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6586979/
12. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12635
13. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/1/5
14. https://polsci.institute/comparative-politics/understanding-concept-of-state-definitions-evolution/
15. https://www.planksip.org/the-citizens-relationship-to-the-state-and-citizen-1763086528978/