It is commonplace today to assume that the integrity of the State is affected by globalization as well as by the growing role of regional constructions such as the European Union and globalization. But such an analysis relies on an institutional view of the State that emphasizes the traditional criteria of State building: from this perspective, the State is first and foremost the embodiment of some sovereignty, and as such, an independent actor on the international scene.

However, State building is only one side of the medal, the other being State formation, as Lonsdale rightly pointed out. If we look at the State from the point of view of its formation, then we focus on the groups who really support this institution, benefit from it, and use it for their own ends. The erosion of the Weberian State as a major player in the world game and as an institution may not deprive the groups who were sustaining it in any way.

In fact, the decline of the State may not promote the emancipation of the individuals, as some authors are pointing out today, but it might well enable the groups who were the main beneficiaries of the State to profit by this process. The privatization of public undertakings provides us with a good example of this phenomenon in some African countries since the group who dominated the post-colonial States are also those who benefit from their privatization. As a result, the idea that these States may be a mystification since the same people are still holding the country and their clientelistic network that was already sustaining the State as it was "built" is still in operation.