You know, I think Bush is the first real market-state president. Reagan may have been the first to attack the nation-state, but Bush really sought to bring its policies to fruition. The “ownership society", deregulation, tax cuts, school vouchers, all geared at removing the promises of the nation-state while increasing the opportunities in the market-state. Unfortunately as it turned out, 9-11 happened and his entire domestic agenda was rested on a set of foreign policy challenges that he could confront more than adequately, but was not capable of seeing through.

I regret this, because to meet the threats of tomorrow, indeed today, the nation-state must pass and be superseded by the market-state. But with a limited administration and an even more limited and dysfunctional opposition party we squandered the great historical opportunity in 9-11, an opportunity to reshape the American political order and by doing so take a large first step in reshaping the international order.
 

hi Andrew,

I think you are correct that Bush probably had a theme of privatization ( not quite the same as being a free marketeer)that might have made him a pivotal figure in that transition to a Market-State.

The Bush administration had the prescience to identify a range of threats but not the wherewithal to maintain the momentum on anything.The Bush administration could " swarm" a priority to a narrow victory, after which they sank into lassitude.
 

Joel Kotkin, in addition to the many other ways he is great, has spent a fair amount of time dishing it to Richard Florida, e.g. in this piece. I don't know much about market-states. But I do know that what makes a city function is the basics, and Florida's theories are not well-supported by the evidence.