Introduction

With this statement Soja underscores how states are inherently urban creations, which originated from cities as superstructures to delimit and protect the vast network of cities (Braudel, 1984) developed from the Middle Ages (and probably earlier). This opinion is shared by other authors. Blockmans (1989, p 753) claims that ‘[u] rbanization […] fundamentally influenced the shape of ‘national’ states: by facilitating their emergence first, and by obstructing centralization in further stages’. Similarly, Therborn (2017, p 110) maintains that ‘[t]he core of European civilization was uniquely urban […]; it developed in sovereign cities, in city-states, which were part of regional systems of exchange, rivalry, competition, warfare and alliance’. In effect, the seeds of a city-centred Europe were sowed by Athens, Rome, Byzantium and, later, Florence (Therborn, 2017).

A rich tradition in political science, hinging on corporatism and pluralism and culminating in the concept of multi-level governance, exposed the fragility of the state, showing how its power and authority are not as monolithic and absolute as postulated by state-centric theories. The nationstate thus ceased to be seen as a stable and unmovable Leviathan. Despite these theoretical postures having the merit of casting a different light onto the ontology of the state, assumptions putting forward the demise of the nation-state are usually pilloried by much of the scholarly community for being too far-fetched. While there is much agreement on the fact that central state institutions are not the only reservoirs of power, the nation-state as a form of polity is still unquestioned.