Eisenstadt, S.N. (1993), The Political Systems of Empires, London/New York: Routledge.

The central thesis of Eisenstadt's analysis is that historical bureaucratic empires are characterised by a precarious balance between traditional ascriptive settings and more differentiated, autonomous political goals. The survival of these systems depends on the generation and control of resources not embedded in traditional groups like tribes or clans.

Empires are inherently unstable due to the tension between the rulers’ need for autonomous resources and their reliance on traditional legitimation. The institutionalisation of an empire requires both a certain level of structural differentiation and the emergence of political entrepreneurs or elites with the vision to create new political entities. Empires maintain highly distinctive and autonomous centers that attempt to permeate and regulate the periphery while limiting the periphery's influence on the center. These polities occupy an evolutionary space between patrimonial/archaic systems and modern societies, though their development is not a linear or guaranteed outcome of social change.

Free Resources and Political Autonomy

A defining characteristic of historical bureaucratic empires is the development and internal reproduction of free resources; those not committed to or embedded in ascriptive groups such as tribes, clans, or traditional aristocratic sectors. Rulers sought to free resources from traditional commitments to create a pool of wealth, manpower, and support that they could control directly. Rulers attempted to maintain small landholders against the encroachments of powerful landowners to ensure a direct source of revenue and soldiers. The establishment of colonies and settlements of free peasant soldiers, independent of the aristocracy, was used to secure military manpower. Parallel policies targeted urban merchants, professional groups, and religious organizations to diversify the state’s support base.

Internal Contradictions and Systemic Dynamics

The analysis identifies several inherent contradictions that drive the dynamics of struggle, change, and eventual demise within these empires.

1. Resource Generation vs. Control

Rulers were interested in generating free resources to achieve their goals, yet they were equally intent on controlling these resources themselves. This often led to the exhaustion of those resources, inadvertently strengthening traditional groups or depleting the strength of the middle and lower strata.

2. Traditional Legitimation vs. Differentiated Activity

While rulers pursued autonomous and differentiated political goals (such as massive military projects or cultural expansion), their own legitimacy was usually couched in traditional terms. This created a ceiling for how far they could limit the influence of traditional aristocratic systems.

3. "Aristocratization"

A recurring process of "aristocratization" often undermined the system. As the middle or lower strata gained prominence through the rulers' appeals, they frequently attempted to adopt aristocratic status and lifestyles, eventually aligning with more traditional forces and reducing the pool of free resources available to the state.

4. Goal-Driven Dynamics

The specific goals of ruling coalitions significantly influenced an empire's dynamics:

• China: Strong emphasis on cultural goals.
• Rome and Byzantium: Stronger focus on military projects and expansion.

Conditions for Development and Institutionalisation

The emergence of an empire is not an inevitable result of social evolution but is contingent upon specific historical conditions and social actors. A certain level of social division of labor and differentiation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the development of an empire. The institutionalisation of these systems relies on institutional entrepreneurs; elites with the vision and ability to forge a new type of polity. Greek City-States lacked a group of leaders capable of forging this specific type of new polity despite having some requisite conditions. Charlemagne and Genghis Khan possessed visionary leaders, but the broader social conditions (structural differentiation) were lacking.

The Structure of the Center and Axial Civilisations

The center of an empire serves as the hub for the regulation of power and the construction of meaning. 

Organisational vs. Model-Based Centers

Eisenstadt distinguishes between two types of social centers:

• Organizational Centers: Structurally elaborate and powerful but symbolically similar to the periphery. They regulate existing social relations and are found in societies where elite functions are embedded in the social division of labor (e.g., Asante, Zulu, Congo).
• Model-Based Centers: Characterized by high symbolic differentiation from the periphery. They promulgate new visions of social order and attempt to transform existing relations. These are found in "noncongruent" societies where elite functions are dissociated from general social tasks (e.g., Buganda, Islamic societies).

Axial Age Civilizations

Coined by Karl Jaspers, the "Axial Age" refers to civilizations (Ancient Israel, Greece, China, Hindu/Buddhist India, and later the Muslim world) characterized by:

• Transcendental vs. Mundane: The institutionalization of a chasm or tension between the transcendental and mundane orders.
• Autonomous Elites: The rise of small groups of "intellectuals" and autonomous elites who acted as carriers of new models of cultural order.

Processes of Change and Transformation

The analysis rejects the idea that all social change leads to greater differentiation. Instead, it identifies several possible outcomes for empires facing internal and external pressures:

Type of Response

Description

Accommodable Change

Internal adjustments that maintain the systemic boundaries (e.g., historical China).

Regression

The institutionalization of less differentiated systems within the remnants of a more differentiated one.

Total Disintegration

The complete breakdown of the system, leading to biological extinction or total immersion into another society.

Transformation

The evolution of the historical bureaucratic society into a more differentiated, modern political system.

Key Determinant of Breakdown: The intensity of internal contradictions, combined with the pressure of external exigencies, determines how quickly a society breaks down or transforms. The interaction between these internal and external forces is more critical than external factors alone.