Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism
- PDF / 197,678 Bytes
- 28 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 69 Downloads / 177 Views
In the post-Cold War era, a voluminous literature has developed to define failed states, identify the causes and parameters of failure, and devise ways for dealing with the problems associated with state fragility and failure. While there is some theoretical diversity within this literature — notably between neoliberal institutionalists and neo-Weberian institutionalists — state failure is commonly defined in terms of state capacity. Since capacity is conceived in technical and ‘objective’ terms, the political nature of projects of state construction (and reconstruction) is masked. Whereas the existence of social and political struggles of various types is often recognized by the failed states literature, these conflicts are abstracted from political and social institutions. Such an analysis then extends into programmes that attempt to build state capacity as part of projects that seek to manage social and political conflict. Ascertaining which interests are involved and which interests are left out in such processes is essential for any understanding of the prospects or otherwise of conflict resolution. Journal of International Relations and Development (2007) 10, 122–149. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800120 Keywords: economic development; failed states; governance; institutionalism; state capacity; social conflict
Introduction The post-Cold War era has been a time of exponential growth for scholarly and policy-makers’ interest in state failure. Major political leaders have placed failed states and the problems associated with them at the centre of their countries’ foreign policy agendas (e.g. Blair 2005; White House 2006). This concern has indeed been translated into a number of forceful interventions in states such as Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands, with the proclaimed objective of stopping and even reversing state decay and failure. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize the literature on failed states with the intention of examining what concept of state failure emerges, what the problems are with this conceptualization, and subsequently what the limitations of this literature’s prescriptions for addressing state failure are. Journal of International Relations and Development, 2007, 10, (122–149) r 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1408-6980/07 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/jird
Shahar Hameiri Failed states or a failed paradigm?
123
While this article examines and evaluates the notion of state failure, this is not an attempt to refine this concept. Indeed, the label ‘failed state’ is itself problematic because of its propensity to stifle efforts to contextualize and better understand what are in essence very complex social phenomena — some of which are rooted in global or regional, rather than in state-based processes of collapse (Berger 2006) — that might explain these very states. By this I do not suggest that there are no serious problems associated with the disintegration of the state apparatus in some states; rather that there is a need for a more sophisticated theorization of state dynamics t
Data Loading...
