 In this session, we are going to discuss state adaptation versus state decline. In order to survive in the rapidly transforming world, states need to adaptable to these ongoing changes. So those who prove highly adaptive have experienced the conclusion that the concept of nation-state is in decline. Debate is going on in the world and specifically in social sciences, and especially political sociologists and political scientists are also thinking that if they do not adapt to the future, if they do not link themselves with them and they do not adapt, then the importance of the state is gradually declining. So there are mainly three episodes of adaptation, number one, that the modern states adapted themselves as the tech-seekers to conduct military affairs. It is a very interesting thing that the states, when they did what to make themselves, the amount of text they took, but the money or the resources they had, they mostly invested in conducting their military affairs, that is, they used the finances, the economy for their own security purpose, and then state as protectors of national economy and agents of industrialization. Then we also saw that there were some states, their main focus was that as much speed as industrialization would be, as much as they would focus on their economy, then they would be able to make themselves as important actors on a very large scale in the world. Then states as a builder of the nation through the expansion of social citizenship. Then in good states, the socialist formula was also adopted, they thought that we have to build our people and we have to invest more on them. But quite interestingly, these shifts were due to the accommodating new functions and institutions in the effective way. Now every state has focused on its own strategy to prove itself more effective, that is, on its own security, on industrialization, and on its own people. But the nation-states historically have been uneven in terms of economic and social changes. But we also saw in the world that all the nation-states, they have done all the effort, but the uneven distribution of economic resources and specifically the social change that was coming in them, was not coming in a proper way. That is, if they were doing effort for their own state, then along with that, within their state they are facing a lot of challenges. So this unevenness had strong influence on the adaptability of states. What is the issue with this? What will the states adapt to? What method will they adapt to? That unevenness can overcome the division. This was an interesting and challenging debate for social scientists. So therefore, some states have greater capacity for military mobilization. Some are more adaptive to economic changes than to manage other uncertain occurrences. Now this is not a single formula. With which we can say that what method should the state opt to take its situation properly, to convince its status and to recognize the importance of its state internationally on the world scenario. We saw that the status of the superpowers, the status of the major powers, had no equal distribution of resources. They also made themselves on the basis of their capacity, on the basis of a specific angle element. In the beginning, some states, like the US, convinced themselves to be a major superpower. So even today, the military strength is the most influential in the military strength context. We saw that Europe focused on industrialization with a lot of effort. China has risen in the technological advancement. But along with that, there is a situation in the entire world, in the nation states, because their dependency is on the major powers, where they borrow resources. So managing their internal issues, we feel that the nation state is going towards decline. So this debate, which is obviously not a proper conclusion, because in social sciences, questions come from debates and for the answers of questions, further research is required.