Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Examples include the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, an independent, albeit Australian government-funded think-tank, that published an important paper Our Failing Neighbour: Australia and the Future of Solomon Islands (Wainwright 2003) in June 2003. This report played an important part in the Australian decision to intervene, according to Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer (2003). Also noteworthy are: the AusAID-funded State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Programme at the Australian National University in Canberra (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia/) — one of the main sources of theoretical and empirical knowledge on that region for Australian government departments; the DfID-funded Crisis States Program at the London School of Economics (http://www.crisisstates.com/); and the DfID-funded Institute of Development Studies in Sussex.
In fact, because of the close relationship between policy and theory, the failed states literature has ironically developed in a different trajectory to that of state theory. The failed states literature is primarily concerned with ‘problem-solving’ and not with relating notions of state failure to the state of the art in state theory. For a comprehensive examination of past and contemporary trends within state theory, see Hay et al. (2006).
This eclecticism is particularly pronounced, but not exclusive to, neoconservatives. This is because they tend to oscillate between the desire to create liberal-democracies and the utility of ‘strong states’ for the war on terror and other immediate security concerns (Rodan and Hewison 2004).
This is particularly in relation to the capacity of well-functioning state institutions to reduce transaction costs and infuse stability and predictability in markets.
The definitions of good governance within the donor literature are numerous. While the World Bank (2002: 99) and the IMF (Camdessus 1998) avoid issues pertaining to political governance and regime type, donor states have tended to include the existence and proper functioning of democratic institutions within their definitions of good governance (AusAID 2000; USAID nd. Critics argue that because ‘good governance’ fosters a technocratic notion of institutions and politics, it is highly problematic. This is for a number of reasons: first, it permits the suppression of dissent as ‘bad’ public policy; second, the depoliticization of economic development makes implementation extremely difficult and third, the negative effects of marketization has on the most vulnerable are ignored (Soederberg 2001; Harrison 2004).
See Burnside and Dollar (1997) for example.
Neoliberal ideology is based on neoclassical economic theory, however neoliberals’ preference for market relations is normative and not based only on functional or technical considerations. As Rodan et al. (2006: 3) point out: ‘This is a statement about a preferred set of power relations and institutional forms.’
Darby and Lothian (1982: 44) noted, however, that while monetary controls were tightened in Thatcher's early years, no similar progress was made on the privatization and fiscal controls fronts. This was largely due to the powerful resistance these reforms encountered.
Regrettably, the scope of this paper is too narrow to provide a detailed account of the origins and pathways of this ideological transformation (cf. Toye 1987).
Of course, democracy was not a concern of the World Bank or IMF, but during the 1980s and 1990s it came to be seen by policy-makers in the West as conducive to sustained economic growth (Shattuck and Atwood 1998). Some critics argued that the form of democracy promoted was only ‘low-intensity democracy’, designed to allow conservative US-friendly elites to protect their privileged positions (Gills et al. 1993).
Indeed, there is a sizable literature on the ‘resource curse’. As the argument goes, without good governance and capable institutions, civil wars often take place in resource-rich countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola, rather than in resource-poor ones. This is because there is more to fight over and more resources to help insurgents sustain the fighting (Ross 1999; de Soysa 2000). While challenging this literature's tendency to seek mono-causal explanations to conflict, Heupel (2006), nevertheless has found a substantial link between rebels’ access to resources and the success of external peace-building.
The state is not the only institution donors have supported in recent years. They have supported decentralization in countries such as Indonesia to increase transparency and accountability. Efforts have also been made to promote civil society organizations that are sympathetic to reform and other groups and organizations that can create a ‘demand’ for good governance.
This resonates with Gramsci's (1971) notion of an ‘organic crisis’.
Bellin (2000) and Rodan and Jayasuriya (2006) argue persuasively that structural relations help explain the trajectories of processes of democratization. Bellin (2000), for example, argues that contrary to the expectations of modernization theorists, the bourgeoisie and the middle classes only champion democratization when it is in their material interests. In this view, democracy is not the existence and proper functioning of ‘democratic’ institutions, but a regime with identifiable societal powerbases.
Indeed, Bob Jessop (1990: 287) has already pointed out the artificial distinction between state and society as one of the main flaws of neo-Weberian state theory.
References
Anderson, Ian (2005) ‘Fragile States: What is International Experience Telling Us?’, Canberra: Australian Agency for International Development, June.
AusAID (2000) ‘Good Governance: Guiding Principles for Implementation’, Canberra: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).
AusAID (2006) ‘Australian Aid: Promoting Growth and Stability’, Canberra: Australian Government Agency for International Development.
Bain, William (2003) Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berger, Mark T. (2006) ‘From Nation-Building to State-Building: The Geopolitics of Development, the Nation-State System and the Changing Global Order’, Third World Quarterly 27 (1): 5–25.
Berger, Mark T. and Heloise Weber (2006) ‘Beyond State-Building: Global Governance and the Crisis of the Nation-State System in the 21st Century’, Third World Quarterly 27 (1): 201–208.
Bellin, Eva (2000) ‘Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor and Democratization in Late Developing Countries’, World Politics 52 (2): 175–205.
Bilgin, Pinar and Adam David Morton (2002) ‘Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences’, Third World Quarterly 23 (1): 55–80.
Blair, Tony (2005) ‘Speech to the General Assembly at the UN World Summit 2005’, 15 September, available at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8195.asp (accessed 17 October, 2006).
Burnside, Craig and David Dollar (1997) ‘Aid Policies and Growth’, Washington DC: World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 1777.
Camdessus, Michel (1998) ‘The IMF and Good Governance’, address by Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the IMF at Transparency International (France), 21 January.
Carroll, Toby (2006) ‘The World Bank's Socio-Institutional Neoliberalism: A Case-Study from Indonesia’, paper presented at the Workshop on the World Bank, Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 18 September.
Carroll, Toby and Shahar Hameiri (2006) ‘The Politics of AusAID's White Paper’, Australian Institute of International Affairs Response Paper, July, pp. 19–25.
Chandler, David (2006) Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-building, London, Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.
Chaudhry, Kiren Aziz (1997) The Price of Wealth: Economies and Institutions in the Middle East, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Chauvet, Lisa and Paul Collier (2004) ‘Development Effectiveness in Fragile States: Spillovers and Turnarounds’, Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies, Department of Economics, Oxford University, January.
Clapham, Christopher (1998) ‘Degrees of Statehood’, Review of International Studies 24 (2): 143–157.
Collier, Paul (2000) ‘Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and their Implications for Policy’, Washington DC: World Bank, 15 June.
Darby, Michael R and James R. Lothian (1982) ‘British Economic Policy under Margaret Thatcher: A Midterm Examination’, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Department of Economics, University of California, Working Paper No. 253.
Dauvergne, Peter (1998) ‘Weak States, Strong States: A State-in-Society Perspective’, in Peter Dauvergne, ed., Weak and Strong States in Asia-Pacific Societies, 1–10, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
de Soysa, Indra (2000) ‘The Resource Curse: Are Civil Wars Driven by Rapacity or Paucity?’, in Mats Berdal and David Malone, eds, Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, 113–135, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
DfID (2005) ‘Why We Need to Work More Effectively in Fragile States’, London: Department for International Development, United Kingdom Government, January.
DfID (2006) Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor, London: Department for International Development, United Kingdom Government.
Dorff, Robert H. (2000) ‘Addressing the Challenges of State Failure’, paper presented at the Failed States Conference’, Florence, Italy, 7–10 April.
Downer, Alexander (2003) ‘Our Failing Neighbour: Australia and the Future of Solomon Islands: Speech at the Launch of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Report’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government, 10 June, available at http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2003/030610_solomonislands.html (accessed 25 August, 2005).
Fukuyama, Francis (2005) State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century, London: Profile Books.
Fullilove, Michael (2006) ‘The Testament of Solomons: RAMSI and International State-Building’, Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy.
Gills, Barry, Joel Rocamora and Richard Wilson, eds (1993) Low Intensity Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order, London: Pluto.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hameiri, Shahar (2006) ‘What Really Went Wrong in Solomons’, The Age (24 April): 11.
Hameiri, Shahar (2007) ‘The Trouble with RAMSI: Reexamining the Roots of Conflict in Solomon Islands’, The Contemporary Pacific 19 (2): forthcoming.
Harrison, Graham (2004) ‘Introduction: Globalisation, Governance and Development’, New Political Economy 9 (2): 155–162.
Hay, Colin, Michael Lister and David Marsh, eds (2006) The State: Theories and Issues, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heupel, Monika (2006) ‘Shadow Trade War Economies and Their Challenge to Peacebuilding’, Journal of International Relations and Development 9 (2): 140–169.
Hewison, Kevin, Garry Rodan and Richard Robison (1993) ‘Introduction: Changing Forms of State Power in Southeast Asia’, in Kevin Hewison, Richard Robison and Garry Rodan, eds, Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism, 2–8, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Jayasuriya, Kanishka (2005) Reconstituting the Global Liberal Order: Legitimacy and Regulation, London and New York: Routledge.
Jayasuriya, Kanishika and Kevin Hewison (2004) ‘The Antipolitics of Good Governance’, Critical Asian Studies 36 (4): 571–590.
Jessop, Bob (1990) State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kabutaulaka, Tarcisius Tara (2005) ‘Australian Foreign Policy and the RAMSI Intervention in Solomon Islands’, The Contemporary Pacific 17 (2): 283–308.
Keohane, Robert O (2003) ‘Political Authority after Intervention: Gradations in Sovereignty’, in Jeff L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane, eds, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, 275–298, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knapman, Bruce and Cedric D. Saldanha (1999) ‘Reforms in the Pacific: An Assessment of the Asian Development Bank's Assistance to Reform Programs in the Pacific’, Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Krasner, Stephen D (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Malloy, James M. (1991) ‘Statecraft, Social Policy, and Governance in Latin America’, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Working Paper No. 151.
Meierhenrich, Jens (2004) ‘Forming States after Failure’, in Robert I. Rotberg, ed., When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, 153–169, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Migdal, Joel S. (1988) Strong Societies and Weak States: State–Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Milliken, Jennifer and Keith Krause (2003) ‘State Failure, State Collapse and State Reconstruction: Concepts, Lessons and Strategies’, in Jennifer Milliken, ed., State Failure, Collapse and Reconstruction, 1–24, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
North, Douglass (1981) Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: Norton.
North, Douglass (1995) ‘The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development’, in John Harris, Jane Hunter and Colin M. Lewis, eds, The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, 17–26, London: Routledge.
Paris, Roland (2004) At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poulantzas, Nicos (1978) State, Power, Socialism, London: New Left Books.
Putzel, James (2004) ‘The Political Impact of Globalisation and Liberalisation: Evidence Emerging from Crisis States: Research’, London: London School of Economics, Crisis States Discussion Paper No.7.
Robison, Richard and Vedi R. Hadiz (2004) Reorganising Power in Indonesia: The Politics of Power in an Age of Markets, London and New York: Routledge Curzon.
Rodan, Garry and Kevin Hewison (2004) ‘Introduction: Closing the Circle? Globalization, Conflict, and Political Regimes’, Critical Asian Studies 36 (3): 383–404.
Rodan, Garry and Kanishka Jayasuriya (2006) ‘Conflict and the New Political Participation in Southeast Asia’, Perth: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University, Working Paper No. 129.
Rodan, Garry, Kevin Hewison and Robison Richard (2006) ‘Theorising Markets in South-East Asia: Power and Contestation’, in Garry Rodan, Kevin Hewison and Richard Robison, eds, The Political Economy of South-East Asia: Markets, Power and Contestation, 1–38, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Ross, Michael L. (1999) ‘The Political Economy of the Resource Curse’, World Politics 51 (2): 297–322.
Rosser, Andrew (2006) ‘Introduction: Achieving Turnaround in Fragile States’, IDS Bulletin 37 (2): 1–13.
Rotberg, Robert I (2004) ‘The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, Prevention and Repair’, in Robert I. Rotberg, ed., When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, 1–45, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shattuck, John and J. Brian Atwood (1998) ‘Defending Democracy: Why Democrats Trump Autocrats’, Foreign Affairs 77 (2): 167–170.
Skocpol, Theda (1985) ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research’, in Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, eds, Bringing the State Back In, 3–37, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soederberg, Susanne (2001) ‘Grafting Stability onto Globalisation? Deconstructing the IMF's Recent Bid for Transparency’, Third World Quarterly 22 (5): 849–864.
Soederberg, Susanne (2004) ‘American Empire and “Excluded States”: The Millennium Challenge Account and the Shift to Pre-Emptive Development’, Third World Quarterly 25 (2): 279–302.
Sørensen, Georg (1999) ‘Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution’, Political Studies XLVII: 590–604.
Thatcher, Margaret (1978) ‘Speech to the Bow Group: “The Ideals of an Open Society’”, 6 May, Margaret Thatcher Foundation Website, available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103674 (accessed 26 October, 2006).
Torres, Magui Moreno and Michael Anderson (2004) ‘Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty Reduction’, London: Poverty Reduction in Difficult Environments Team, Policy Division, Department for International Development, United Kingdom Government, August.
Toye, John (1987) Dilemmas of Development: Reflections on the Counter-Revolution in Development Theory and Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turnbull, Jane (2002) ‘Solomon Islands: Blending Traditional Power and Modern Structures in the State’, Public Administration and Development 22: 191–201.
USAID (nd) ‘Promoting Democracy and Good Governance’, United States Agency for International Development website, available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/ (accessed 17 October, 2006).
USAID (2005) ‘Fragile States Strategy’, Washington DC: United States Agency for International Development, January.
van de Walle, Nicolas (2004) ‘The Economic Correlates of State Failure: Taxes, Foreign Aid, and Policies’, in Robert I. Rotberg, ed., When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, 94–115, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wainwright, Elsina (2003) ‘Our Failing Neighbour: Australia and the Future of Solomon Islands’, Canberra: ASPI Policy Report, Strategy and International Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute,.
Weber, Max (1991) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge.
Weiss, Linda (1999) The Myth of the Powerless State, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
White House (2006) ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, Washington DC: The White House, March.
World Bank (1983) World Development Report 1983, New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank (1991) ‘Managing Development: The Governance Dimension’, Washington, DC: World Bank, Discussion Paper.
World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Bank (2002) World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets, New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank (2003) ‘Country Policy and Institutional Assessment’, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zartman, I.William (1995) ‘Introduction: Posing the Problem of State Collapse’, in I. William Zartman, ed., Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, 1–14, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Acknowledgements
I thank Garry Rodan, Kanishka Jayasuriya, Andrew Rosser, Toby Carroll, the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Responsibility for the final version is, of course, solely mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hameiri, S. Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism. J Int Relat Dev 10, 122–149 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800120
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800120