We have seen so far that materialist theories of development tend to incor­ porate a highly functionalist and reductionist theorization of the state’s involvement in the development process. This occurs even where theoriz­ ations of other aspects of development avoid such problems to a large extent. In none of the accounts which have been discussed does the state appear as anything other than a kind of reserve power of the capitalist class which is triggered into action on demand or by virtue of a special expertise in pre-visioning what those demands are likely to be. The important con­ straints which are imposed upon state action by the existence of a class society, and indeed, the limitations upon what a dominant class can itself achieve are assumed away. The problems of its antagonistic relationship with a subordinate class which, nevertheless, is not powerless with regard to the operation of means of production, are obliterated by the determinations of space, exchange or the logic of capital accumulation. Moreover, the possibility of important variations in the relationship between state and capital, or more accurately branches of capital (industrial versus financial; industrial producers versus industrial consumers; banks versus other institu­ tionalized finance capital), and their spatial representation in development processes is not explored. Finally, the question of levels and specificities within the overall apparatus of the state, the extent to which conflicts on an intra-state basis affect the development process, and where the planning of development sits in relation to class and non-class interests as these impinge on the state, are similarly underemphasized.