Seymour M. Lipset's Views About Nation-Building

Compare and contrast Seymour M. Lipset and Shmuel Eisenstadt’s historical sociology in the case of nation-building processes.

A. Introduction
What is Nation-Building?
A 2003 study by James Dobbins and others for the RAND Corporation defines nation-building as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy"(Dobbins). It can count as a normative concept which refers different things to different people. It can also be defined as “nation-building” is a process which leads to the formation of countries in which the citizens feel an adequate amount of cohesion of interests, aims and preferences so that they do not wish to separate from each other. The newest conceptualization is basically that nation-building programs are those in which dysfunctional or unbalanced or "failed states" or economies are given assistance in the development of governmental organization, civil society, dispute resolution mechanisms, as well as economic assistance, in order to rise the stability (Stephenson).

B. Seymour M. Lipset’s View About Nation-Building

That book shows us that The United States was the first major colony which successfully revolt against colonial rule. Therefore, it was the first new nation.
The United States may properly claim the title of the first new nation. It was the first major colony successfully to break away from colonial rule through revolution. . . So perhaps the first new nation can contribute more than money to the latter-day ones; perhaps its development can give us some clues as to how revolutionary equalitarian and populist values may eventually become incorporated into a stable non-authoritarian polity (Lipset,