Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty ... - INEE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty ReductionIV. Understanding a state’s developmental capacity andwillingness20. Why capacity and willingness? An important aspect of state crisis,particularly during transitions or transformation periods, is the failure toenforce any institutions, understood widely as the rules of the game thatset incentives, opportunities and limitations for individuals andorganisations. One of the most persistent types of state weakness occurbecause of an inappropriate match between willingness and capacity, orbetween the political conditions and a state’s exercise of transformationalcapacities 25 . Effective development requires both institutional capacity todesign and implement pro-poor policies and a degree of responsiveness ofpowerful social and political groups to alleviating poverty. By focusing oncapacity and willingness to engage in development partnerships, we arearguing that these two concepts are important for poverty reduction.Needless to say, capacity and willingness influence each other in mostdifficult environment contexts and, although we have separated them forpresentational and conceptual clarity, it is important to keep in mind thedynamics between them. We leave out of our definitional approach allother aspects that may be key for state effectiveness in other dimensions,whilst acknowledging that they are likely to influence developmentoutcomes in the long run. Poor developmental performance is thus not thedefining problem, but rather it is the absence of a strong and/or legitimatestate with which to engage.21. What do we mean by state capacity and willingness? Capacity andwillingness often seem intuitively obvious to casual observers. And theyrepresent the lowest common denominator for a minimally effective stateon many dimensions (security, law enforcement, macroeconomicmanagement) 26 . Yet when used as criteria for an operational definition,their features become much less clear. We set out to address thischallenge by explaining what these two concepts mean in the context ofdifficult environments (please see Annex 1 for a detailed table of criteria).This stylised typology is not a substitute for context-specific analysis, sothe performance against these core criteria should be taken as a veryrough approximation of state effectiveness, to be corrected and refined bymore contextual understandings. Moreover, we recognise that a widevariety of institutional arrangements and policy agendas have resulted ineconomic development. 2722. The concept of state capacity. When assessing the developmentalcapacity of the state, we are looking to the core features that most strongly25 Khan (1999), 526 The World Development Report 1997 set out the minimal functions of the state as: ‘theprovision of pure public goods such as property rights, macroeconomic stability, control ofinfectious disease, safe water, roads, and protection of the destitute.’ (World Bank (1997), 27-8). The Report goes on to identify a range of ‘intermediate’ and ‘activist’ functions beyond theminimum core functions.27 Rodrik (2003).This working paper is intended to stimulate public discussion. It is not necessarilyDFID or UK Government policy15
Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty Reductioninfluence the state’s capacity to mobilise and use resources for povertyreduction. If these essential features are missing or are met to a limitedextent, then the capacity of the state to engage with others to reducepoverty will be seriously affected:a. The foundations of state authority, which guarantee a state’sfunctionality. The two key criteria are territory control and presence,and international sovereignty. The first includes gauging the extent towhich a state controls its external borders and internal territory. It alsorefers to the extent to which the state is able to provide human securityand monopolise or regulate the legitimate use of force in a giventerritory. State authority may also be affected by juridical statehood, orthe recognition of a territorial and political entity as a member of theinternational system.b. The effective exercise of political power, which is required to maintainlines of command and control, to contain political competition withinmanageable boundaries, and to ensure there is a relationship betweenthe rulers and the ruled. Three dimensions are important: first, themechanisms to distribute power, including formal and informal divisionspower, and the existence of checks on unlimited power. Second, theautonomy and stability of political institutions vis-à-vis private interestsand political or social conflict. Third, the capacity for the state toengage with the population.c. Basic competence in economic management is indicated byinstitutional capacity to assess and regulate both fiscal and monetarypolicy. A further key component is a minimal regulatory framework tofacilitate legitimate economic activity while prohibiting economic crime.d. The administrative capacity for implementation requires sufficientinfrastructure, human resources, and systems to implement to the mostbasic decisions of government. Linkages between objectives, policies,planning, and budgeting indicate a system for translating goals intoresource mobilisation. A sector-specific criterion looks at the capacitygaps for service delivery.23. The concept of state willingness. Although the word ‘willingness’ seems tosomehow imply that those in power have a straightforward choice ordecision about implementing policy goals, there may be complex socialand political factors at work. Political will to reduce poverty at the apex ofgovernment may be frustrated by local officials who lack the will toimplement policies that run counter to their personal interests. So toorulers who see the long-term value of pro-poor policy choices may benevertheless be deterred by the short-term need to maintain politicalsupport among client groups. Good policies often make bad politics. Indifficult environments, a lack of willingness may be an inability forgovernments and their agents to reconfigure their incentives becausepatrimonial or self-interested demands are more powerful. WhenThis working paper is intended to stimulate public discussion. It is not necessarilyDFID or UK Government policy16
Page 2 and 3: Fragile States: Defining Difficult
Page 12: Fragile States: Defining Difficult

Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty ... - INEE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?