This research employs a framework of social power, as coined by Michael Mann (1986; 1993), to understand the processes of state formation and development in Uganda. Using historical knowledge to understand the extent of social power relations in Ugandan society, the thesis assesses how these relations have shaped Ugandan state formation from the mid-1850s through to the present day. The research aims to bridge a gap between the discussions from African political theorists and historians and those of historical sociologists. It posits that state formation is a useful subject of study within the field of Development Studies, especially when it engages with historical empiricism. However, rather than providing a historically descriptive account of how the state formed, the research employs the theoretical framework of social power to guide the investigation of Ugandan state formation. Four units of analysis - ideological, political, military and economic sources of power form the basis of the approach. A historically and sociologically grounded analysis of the formation of the Ugandan state provides a contextually thick framework through which state development can be understood. By employing Mann's macro-historical sociological framework, this research aims to respond to calls not only for greater macro-theorisation, but also for history to be taken into account in development discourse. Unfortunately, the study of history and the use of historians' work is an investment of time which many development scholars struggle to afford There is an emerging critique that Development Studies scholars should not only acknowledge the historical processes underlying and framing their research, but that they should also actively engage with history to inform theoretical approaches to development. This thesis aims to demonstrate, from a historical sociology perspective, that history does matter for development and should, therefore, secure itself a place within the discipline, ensuring that Development Studies does include the study of social change in societies over long periods of time. Consequently, the analysis of this thesis argues that Mann's model of social power can cast light on development trajectories and specifically for the purpose of this study, on processes of state formation in Uganda.

國民黨執政期間國家社會關係為上對下威權統治關係，而後威權時期台灣國家社會關係最突出的現象為社會自主性的提昇，國家社會關係轉變為平行合作伙伴關係，經濟自由化促進政治民主化，表面上「民意」成為台灣政經發展的主要推動力量，但支持台灣後威權時期民主政治發展之多元制度卻仍付之闕如，促使台灣發生類似民主民粹化現象。高漲的民意反噬民主政治賴以建立的根基—多元化民主，政治一元化論述撕裂了民主社會應有的基本共識與互信，並造成國家認同問題，筆者認為，民主民粹化現象使後威權時期台灣國家社會關係反而回到國家社會衝突對抗關係，多元與互補性認同是撫癒此種社會裂痕的主要關鍵。而缺乏制度性安排是造成此種緊張關係的主要原因，國家社會鑲嵌性不足，聯帶影響台灣整體國家能力。 後威權時期台灣所臨的困境主要在於如何以制度性安排重建國家社會鑲嵌性，社會需求、想法能循正常制度管道完全供輸至公部門，而公部門在制定重大政策時能同時整合私部門的需求與想法，但切忌以國家基礎建設能力為祭品，讓行政官僚體系無法發揮應有的效能，不僅社會鑲嵌性出現問題，也使貧富差距加大，造成社會不穩定。 台灣正處於政經轉型階段，如何以正面適切的回應解決來自全球化的挑戰，是政府和民間社會必需共同面對的問題，制度若無法成為民主政治的主要屏障，則民主化不必然保證多元社會的出現。