Document Library

Key Text States in Development: State-building and Service Delivery

Author: Jack Eldon, Derek Gunby
Date: 2009
Size: 133 pages (1.4 MB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How, when and why do basic services matter for responsive state building? This paper from HLSP uses cases studies from Cambodia, Nigeria, South Sudan and Zimbabwe to explore these questions. It is part of wider research on fragile states and Whaites’ model of 'responsive' and 'unresponsive' states. The relationship between state responsiveness and service delivery is not straightforward. Fragility, violence, patronage, ethnicity and economic growth all play a part. To maximise the state building impacts of service delivery, donors should seek to develop the state’s ability to: (i) provide strategic oversight; (ii) manage and, where appropriate, deliver basic services.

Responsive states are seen by Whaites as those in which the evolving political settlement facilitates greater stability and security and promotes an emerging social contract. As expectations grow responsive states seek to meet public expectations, including demands for basic services. Unresponsive states are often built on less resilient political settlements, and are frequently characterised by high degrees of patronage and corruption. They often fail to ensure even basic state survival functions, such as security, taxation and law, and are characterised by weak legitimacy, informal and predatory politics with little interest in delivering effective and accountable basic services. This, in turn, can further weaken the already unstable political settlement.

Five key contextual factors that have helped shape political settlements and influenced the trajectory of state (un)responsiveness emerge from the case studies. These factors are:

Fragility: Responsive state building is the process of developing states that are legitimate; have political processes to manage conflict; have basic organisational and institutional capacity and access to resources. Fragile states lack some or all of these characteristics.
Violence and instability: It is unsurprising that states affected by conflict face difficulties establishing responsive service delivery. But there is evidence that services can help gain support during conflict and be part of the 'peace dividend'.
Patronage: Corruption and patronage are present in all four case studies. They form ‘shadow states’; informal networks operating in parallel to state structures. Local elites use manipulation to enhance their power and wealth, often actively undermining state effectiveness.
Ethnicity: Ethnic and religious differences have played a role in the political economies of Nigeria, Sudan and Zimbabwe. These differences are exploited as a way of diverting discontent about wider social and political problems.
The role of economic growth: Opportunities for economic growth can be critical to whether elites are defensive or confident during state building. Economic growth can also increase opportunities to escape fragility.

Donor policy and practice must be rooted in an understanding of the state building process and the trade-offs it involves. Donors should understand the state building trajectory and recognise stages at which support can make a difference. They should support emerging political settlements, especially those that can evolve as responsive states, and state stability, but recognise trade-offs between security and fostering an open society. Long term engagement is needed to support accountability. Further recommendations for donors include the following:

Recognise tensions between delivering services to achieve sector outcomes and delivering services to build states.
Explicitly recognise the trade-offs between providing long term international aid and promoting taxation as a basis for accountability and responsiveness.
Support elements of civil society with the potential to press for improved state performance and accountability e.g. trade unions, media and churches. It is important to recognise tensions inherent in donor support to civil society whose role is to hold ruling elites to account.
Understand the net effects and contradictory impacts of donor activities and do not undermine responsive state building.
Promote state building analysis in discussions around harmonisation and alignment, and develop state building skills and experience in donor agencies.
Learn from experience and develop research agendas to build knowledge. There are some beliefs about service delivery and state building that need to be tested empirically.

Access full text: available online

Source: Eldon, J., and Gunby, D., 2009, 'States in Development: State-building and Service Delivery', HLSP, London
Author: Jack Eldon , jack.eldon@hlsp.org
Organisation: HLSP, http://www.hlsp.org/