It's common in the discussion about social policy and development to preserve the State and to immolate the market. Historically speaking, positive appreciation of State's role is bound with welfare state which, although it hat been a relatively short and restrict phenomenon - it lasted about 30 years and was restricted to a dozen of Eurocentric countries -, was remarkable in terms of social gains facing market's liberal forces. Almost always the discussion hides that Welfare State didn't redeem the capitalist State, since it just occasioned one more interesting social version. From the viewpoint of the social question, critics to (neo)liberal market are, in general, adequate, but they easily hide that market is a historic-structural institution, as the State as well. Just as we have to distinguish between State as such and capitalist State, we also have to distinguish between market as such and capitalist market. Market and State fulfill essential roles in social policy e development, in each society and system, being in check its capitalist configuration. They are not saint, nor damned, because their historic concrete qualification depends from the respective society. Today we see the unique thought's tendency of presenting liberal capitalist market as one and only solution, as if outside there will be no salvation. It's simple the other side of the coin of the saint State.
State; market; social policy; development; capitalism