engaging fragile states - Woodrow Wilson International Center for ...

addressed. In addition, to the extent very high standards are set for humanitarian
relief, the states may not be able to meet them when the time comes to actually try
to take on those roles. As documented in a case study on the health sectors in the
Southern Sudan and the DRC, a perverse incentive is created to want to keep the
humanitarian organizations around as long as possible. After all, the people will
benefit when the standards are high.
When it comes to the development model, because it is motivated primarily by
technical criteria, one of the challenges is that state-building is often very political.
In the immediate aftermath of the Liberian conflict, the argument was made from
a public health standpoint that the biggest bang-for-the-buck in terms of keeping
people healthy would come from re-establishing inoculations. But this was not
what the Liberians wanted. Instead, they were more concerned with reopening
the clinics and access to competent services so that they could give birth to their
children in a stable environment with expertise to help with the birthing process.
A discontinuity existed between technical efficiency and the population’s
perceived needs.
On top of these models also lies an architecture of policy expectations such as
the Paris Declaration, the Millennium Development Goals, and Education for
All. These have set standards for what is thought to be appropriate in all developing
country settings. However, these may conflict with the needs in fragile states.
Education for All emphasizes primary education, for example, yet the Fragile
States Group found that one of the key groups that needed to get educated were
older youth, particularly those who were demobilizing. They could not be sent
back to first grade, and yet there were no resources going to this particular group
because the emphasis was on primary education. In a similar way, the vertical
Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria tends to focus on a specific aspect
of development and measures output indicators on that dimension, without
adequate attention to how to build sustainable delivery systems.
Although the Fragile States Group’s findings and recommendations have been
in circulation for over two years, these tensions essentially remain unresolved.
For the sake of those living in fragile state environments, the tensions must be
addressed through reigniting conversations between the policy communities involved
in service-oriented state-building in fragile state environments.
Responding to Fragile States: Lessons From Recent Experience | 73