Two big "theories of order": (1) transfer power/rights to central authority in exchange for security and dispute resolution; legitimacy extends order beyond the policeable. (2) individuals internalize shared pro-social norms and values. Both approaches more obvious in homogeneous societies — how to explain in heterogeneous case? Basic idea here is that local order, which is easier to attain, gives rise to more global order (282.7).

"Our argument is that the members of social groups can be expected to produce local order to satisfy their own private ends, and once produced, this local order, regardless of its normative content, often contributes to the production of global order" (283.1).

Empirical implication: states will tolerate lots of local orders — anything that doesn't directly threaten the state as ultimate authority or impose costs on those who can lobby state for protection.