Summary

• The idea of a »monopoly of force« can be more adequately described as a compulsory security formation. However, it is by no means the only way in which security can be provided.
• From a perspective of political economy, security practices can be distinguished in terms of either the compulsory or commercial provision of security services. This distinction cuts right through established epistemologies of political science, with their emphases on state/non-state or public/private dichotomies. It shifts the main focus from actor-type to the types of relations and exchanges we encounter in security networks.
• As a brief empirical overview demonstrates, different types of agents assume different positions in both compulsory and commercial formations.
• The »state,« it follows, does not matter from this perspective; it is but one actor among many, which may provide security and accumulate capital in different ways.