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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty ReductionFigure 2: Towards a policy-relevant typologyWeak capacity, strongerwillingness – ‘weak butwilling’Stronger capacity andwillingness – ‘Monterrey’countries1986-Willingness(commitment to poverty andinclusiveness)1990Country Y1991-Country X1997-981999-Country ZWeak capacity andwillingness – ‘weak-weak’1985LowLow20011997-98present19991994-971989-93Country WState Capacity(authority, economic capacity, powerdistribution and implementation capacity)Stronger capacity, weakwillingness – ‘strong butunresponsive’• States with willingness and stronger capacity may have strong statepresence and territory control; some degree of competence in fiscaland monetary policy or a strong administrative capacity and publicinstitutions that are fairly committed to development. These states aregood partners for poverty reduction, and are likely to have PRSPs inplace, but may have structural risk factors for state weakness thatwarrant specific attention.• States with weak willingness and stronger capacity may have a strongstate in terms of administrative capacity and territorial control, but onethat is unresponsive to the needs of the poor, either because of theneo-patrimonial nature of state politics (as in the case of Zimbabwe) orbecause a real or perceived external threat diverts the use of resourcesfor other aims that do not tackle poverty in country (as in North Korea).The key here may be for external actors to be realistic and to look atlong-tem drivers of change when weighing the options for engagement.27. The importance of context and the political economy. This is an era whenmore is expected from the state than ever before. But state strength is acomplex, multifaceted concept that involves political motivation as well asinstitutional capacity and willingness. A typology is a tool that does notsubstitute for context-specific political analysis, where awareness ofThis working paper is intended to stimulate public discussion. It is not necessarilyDFID or UK Government policy19
Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty Reductionpolitical cycles and linkages between political, social and economicinstitutions and structures can be key. To understand the effectiveness ofa state, it is necessary to realise that a state is not merely the inevitableresult of historical evolution, but an evolving quality that cannot bemeaningfully assessed independent of context, particularly in terms ofinternational factors and the dynamics of society-state relations. 30 Aseparate paper will look at the international factors affecting difficultenvironments. With regards to the dynamics of society-state relations,knowing the informal political setting is important to understand whobenefits from a weak or failed state. 31 As donors, we also need tounderstand that reforms may be very much part of the government’sprogramme for reasons other than real commitment to sustainability orchange: to please donors and secure funding, or because they can beimplemented in ways that yield financial benefits or are advantageouspolitically. Where non-state actors are stronger, or where the constitutionand the electoral system are such that unstable multi-party coalitions arecommon, links between state and society become much more relevant,and the question of state capacity and policy commitment may well bebased in networks of patronage. Institutions are not necessarily set up tobe socially efficient 32 .28. The measurement challenge: Assessing both state capacity andwillingness is a difficult task and ultimately a question of politicaljudgement on a case-by-case basis. There are no internationally agreedcriteria by which to measure state performance that are appliedconsistently. Moreover, many of the existing measures (e.g. Freedom inthe World) apply standards that assess a governments’ ability to reproduceparticular institutional forms such as multiparty democracy rather than itsability to deliver on generic political and social functions. Unfamiliarpolitical processes may nevertheless be effective, and even popular. Yetthe basic problems of subjectivity and political partiality (judging byexternal standards) will not disappear and we need to be careful to takethis into account. Whereas the tables in Annex 1 may provide someindication of the areas that might give rise to proxy measures for statecapacity and willingness, the topic of measurement will be covered in aseparate paper.29. The need for “good donorship”. The institutional structures and practices ofdonors, including DFID, create their own patterns of incentives andcapacities in countries. Foreign aid, both bilateral and multilateral, hasoccasionally contributed to reinforcing the reproduction of weak statesthrough the transfer of resources, the continued recognition of statehood,and the use of aid by recipient governments for legitimising purposes.Donors should be aware of potential unintended consequences ofengaging with difficult environments. The timing of donor responses is also30 Chabal and Daloz (1999), 4-531 Englebert has pointed out: ‘The capacity to use the weak state as an instrument ofpredation is the most crucial element of the logic of its survival and reproduction.’ Englebert(2003), 732 David Dunham (2003), 14-17This working paper is intended to stimulate public discussion. It is not necessarilyDFID or UK Government policy20
Page 2 and 3: Fragile States: Defining Difficult
Page 12: Fragile States: Defining Difficult
Page 34: 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?