Fragile states

State-building models, state functions and sequencing

State-building has recently been adopted as the central objective of international engagement in fragile situations. The growing prominence of state-building on the international development agenda in part stems from the realisation that the MDG’s are unlikely to be achieved in fragile situations without the establishment of both a basic level of security and a functioning state.

State-building is broadly understood as an ongoing, long-term, and endogenous process of establishing and/or developing effective and legitimate state institutions and state-society relations. The OECD-DAC defines state-building as: ‘purposeful action to develop the capacity, institutions and legitimacy of the state in relation to an effective political process for negotiating the mutual demands between state and societal groups’ (OECD-DAC, 2008). Central to this understanding is the critical importance of positive state-society bargaining underpinning the formation of the social contract.

International donors are increasingly applying a state-building lens to analysing and addressing fragility. But the idea of state-building as a framework for development assistance remains controversial. Many caution that international actors can and should only have limited influence in endogenous processes of state formation. Critics of international engagement argue that state-building is undertaken with the underlying aim of transferring institutional models based on an ideal type of well-functioning state, and that this offers little room for alternative models of statehood.

Page contents

State-building and peace-building
State-building models
State functions
Prioritisation and sequencing issues

State-building and peace-building

State-building and peace-building are conceptually distinct, with complementaries, trade-offs and tensions between the two. Peace-building specifically refers to efforts to create conditions in which violence will not recur. State-building is the developing of effective and legitimate state institutions and state-society relations. Both are inherently political processes. The complementarities between peace-building and state-building in post-conflict situations and the imperative for international agencies to adopt integrated approaches are increasingly recognised.

DFID, 2009, 'Building the State and Securing the Peace', Emerging Policy Paper, Department for International Development, London
How can support for state-building and peace-building be integrated? This Emerging Policy Paper from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) outlines a strategic framework for DFID’s engagement in situations of conflict and fragility, plus operational implications. DFID’s integrated approach to state-building and peace-building aims to promote inclusive political settlements, which underpin the further objectives of: (i) addressing causes of conflict and building resolution mechanisms; (ii) developing state survival functions; and (iii) responding to public expectations. Support across all four of these inter-related areas is necessary to help create a positive peace- and state-building dynamic.
Access full text: available online

Suhrke, A. and Wimpelmann, T., 2007, 'Peace Processes and State Building: Economic and Institutional Provisions of Peace Agreements', Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen
To what extent have recent civil war peace agreements included state-building provisions? This paper, prepared for the World Bank and the UNDP by the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), reviews the academic literature and examines recent peace agreements to assess the degree to which they make provision for future state operations. State-building provisions may involve a trade-off between the goals of ending hostilities and setting norms for peace-building.
Access full text: available online

See the related peace-building section of the GSDRC conflict guide.

State-building models

For the most part, the model of state-building promoted by the international community has entailed three main prongs: supporting the legitimacy and accountability of states through democratic governance (holding elections and constitutional processes); economic liberalisation/marketisation; and strengthening the capacity of states to fulfil their core functions in order to reduce poverty. These activities are seen as essential for the development of ‘reciprocal relations between a state that delivers services for its people and social and political groups who constructively engage with their state’ (OECD-DAC, 2008). This ‘responsive’ model of state-building is distinguishable from ‘unresponsive’ state-building, which is characterised by rent-seeking and political repression and can lead to conflict (Whaites, 2008).

OECD-DAC, 2008, ‘State-building in Situations of Fragility: Initial findings’, OECD-DAC, Paris
What is the nature of state-building in the context of fragile states and situations? This paper from the OECD-DAC summarises the findings of discussions between OECD-DAC members initiated to deepen the international community’s knowledge and understanding of the concept of state-building. It concludes that state-building in fragile contexts is an endogenous process driven by state-society relations which, in spite of its linkages with other kinds of economic and political development, is a distinct and necessary process for long-term state legitimacy and effectiveness.
Access full text: available online

Whaites A., 2008, 'States in Development: Understanding State-building', Department for International Development, London
Why do some states manage state-building better than others? How can development actors support positive state-building? This paper from the UK Department for International Development’s Governance and Social Development Group argues that improved understanding of state-building can increase the impact of aid, while lack of understanding reduces its benefits. Two conceptual frameworks, or models, for state-building dynamics are evident: The first is a model of how state-building can work to produce capable, accountable and responsive states - namely responsive state-building. The second is a model of unresponsive state-building - a set of dynamics likely to lead to states affected by problems such as endemic rent-seeking or political repression. The models are based on three elements – political settlements; survival functions; and expected functions.
Access full text: available online

Some argue there may be tensions embedded in the international state-building model in the sense that the three elements (as outlined in the DFID discussion paper and emerging policy paper) may not always go together in mutually reinforcing ways, or may be undermined by political economy factors. There is also some divergence of opinion about whether state-building is necessarily a development activity. Some argue resilient states do not necessarily preside over economic growth and poverty reduction (many encounter so-called ‘resilient stagnation’). Conversely, what allows states to preside over economic growth may not necessarily be the same as what is required for responsive state-building.

Fritz, V. and Menocal, A.R., 2007, 'Understanding State-Building from a Political Economy Perspective', Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London
This paper from the Overseas Development Institute seeks to contribute to a more conceptually informed understanding of state-building, adopting a political economy perspective. In addition, the paper suggests that donors face (at least) three significant challenges in their engagement with state-building. These include political economy challenges, such as corruption and neo-patrimonialism; a knowledge gap about what works in providing external support for various state-building domains; and tensions embedded in the state-building model that the international community is currently pursuing.
Access full text: available online

Crisis States Research Centre, 2008, ‘Development as State Making’, CSRC Brief, London School of Economics (LSE), London
This brief discusses the key findings of the CSRC’s research stream on state-building. A key finding is that what accounts for state resilience may not be the same as what allows states to preside over economic growth and poverty reduction. The difference between fragile and resilient states is a function of elite bargains, coalitional politics, security and production. State resilience seems to depend on the inclusiveness of bargains struck among elites and the extent to which state organisations have established their presence throughout a country’s territory. There may be trade-offs at any given time between securing peace and promoting positive programmes for economic growth and welfare.
Access full text: available online

An alternative ‘developmental states’ model of state-building questions the focus on the development of democratic institutions and good governance as necessary for poverty reduction, suggesting that economic transformation and elite consensus are the more critical elements of state-building. But the relevance and applicability of the developmental state model to fragile situations is highly controversial.

Barbara, J, 2008, 'Rethinking neo-liberal state building: building post-conflict development states', Development in Practice,18:3,307 — 318
In attempting to rebuild post-conflict failed states, the international community has drawn heavily on neo-liberal development paradigms. However, neo-liberal state-building has proved ineffectual in stimulating economic development in post-conflict states, thus undermining prospects for state consolidation. This article offers the developmental state as an alternative model for international state-building, better suited to overcoming the developmental challenges that face post-conflict states. Drawing on the East Asian experience, developmental state-building would seek to build state capacity to intervene in the economy to guide development, compensating for the failure of growth led by the private sector to materialise in many post-conflict states.
Access full text: available online

Briscoe I., 2008, 'Can Fragile States Learn from the Development Tigers?', Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE), Madrid
Can the developmental success of East Asian countries be used as a road map for low-income economies run by weak states? According to this paper from FRIDE, the national and historical context of fragile states means that it is difficult to export the experience of states like South Korea or Taiwan. However, there are important lessons to be learned. Active state intervention, strategic economic policies and a hands-off approach by the international community are all crucial components in kick-starting fast economic growth.
Access full text: available online

State functions

Whilst there is consensus that a resilient state must be able to deliver certain functions which meet citizens’ needs and expectations, there is a great deal of debate about what these functions should be, and whether it is possible to establish a hierarchy between them. DFID and other donors distinguish between state ‘survival’ functions and ‘expected’ functions which are essential to meet public expectations and ensure state legitimacy. DFID does not propose a hierarchy between these, as action in both areas is required to generate a positive state-building dynamic. The literature offers various combinations of ‘core’ functions, the more common of which are: a monopoly over the legitimate use of force; revenue generation; safety, security and justice; basic service delivery; and economic governance.

Relatively little evidence-based work has been done to substantiate the arguments about which core functions states should perform or prioritise. Importantly, expected functions will differ according to the historical and cultural factors that shape state-society relations in different contexts. Many view the discussion as essentially political, since it questions the proper role and size of the state vis-à-vis other authorities and groups in society.

Ghani A., Lockhart C., 2005, 'Closing the Sovereignty Gap: An Approach to State Building', Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London
Where a state consistently fails to meet the basic prerequisites of a sovereign government, how can this ‘sovereignty gap’ be closed in order to improve its security and prosperity? This working paper from the Overseas Development Institute argues greater emphasis should be placed on core functions that a sovereign state must perform. When they are performed well, the state creates a virtuous circle generating greater legitimacy and trust between the governing and the governed. The failure to perform one or a number of the functions well creates, by contrast, a vicious circle, leading in the end to varying degrees of state failure.
Access full text: available online

The Ghani/Lockhart framework of state functions is available on the website of the Institute for State Effectiveness.

Prioritisation and sequencing issues

An appropriate prioritisation and sequencing of state-building processes and functions is seen as important in low capacity contexts where there are likely to be limited resources and therefore a need for high levels of (donor) co-ordination. One key debate concerns whether a certain level of security is required prior to the establishment of democratic institutions. The OECD-DAC contends that the first priority in state building should be a form of political governance through which state and society can reconcile their expectations of one another, which determines whether security is provided in a way that meets the needs of citizens (OECD-DAC, 2008).

OECD-DAC., 2008, 'From Fragility to Resilience: Concepts and Dilemmas of Statebuilding in Fragile States', Report prepared by the Center on International Cooperation at New York University and International Peace Academy, New York
This discussion paper from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development sees state-building as an internal political process of state-society bargaining. Donors therefore need to focus first and foremost on political governance. This includes the local political processes that create public institutions and generate their legitimacy in the eyes of a state's population. Fragility arises primarily from weaknesses in the dynamic political process through which citizens’ expectations of the state and state expectations of citizens are reconciled and brought into equilibrium with the state’s capacity to deliver services. Disequilibrium can arise as a result of extremes of incapacity, elite behaviour, or crises of legitimacy. It can arise through shocks or chronic erosion, and be driven alternately by internal and external factors. Resilient states are able to manage these pressures through a political process that is responsive, adjusting the social contract.
Access full text: available online

Paris, R., 2004, 'Introduction', in At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict, Cambridge University Press, pp.1-10.
What is the relationship between liberalisation, institution building and peace in countries that are just emerging from civil conflict? Roland Paris' book examines post-conflict operations between 1989 and 1999. This introductory chapter outlines the author's argument that while peace-builders should preserve the broad goal of converting war-shattered states into liberal market democracies, peace-building strategies need to build effective institutions before liberalisation takes place.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary

Bratton, M. and Chang, E., 2006, ‘State Building and Democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Forwards, Backwards, or Together?’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 39, no. 9, pp 1059-1080
Is democracy feasible in sub-Saharan Africa? Which aspects of state-building are most important? This research from Michigan State University shows that new democracies emerge only in the context of effective states. The scope of state infrastructure and the delivery of welfare services have little impact on democratisation. But the establishment of a rule of law is critical to building democracy. Because the legitimacy of the state is itself a reciprocal product of democratisation, African states and African regimes should be understood together.
Access full text: available online

Hesselbein, G., Golooba-Mutebi, F. and Putzel, J., 2006, ‘Economic and Political Foundations of State Making in Africa: Understanding State Reconstruction’, Crisis States Research Centre Working Paper, Series 2, no. 3., London School of Economics (LSE), London
How can the process of state reconstruction be understood? This working paper from the Crisis States Research Centre examines state reconstruction in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo in light of Tanzania’s experience of establishing a stable state. Overall, it argues that a ‘state in the making’ lies somewhere between ‘traditional’ forms of organisation and the modern state and formal economy. Its conclusions cast doubt on the idea that state-making is best pursued through modern liberal democracy.
Access full text: available online

Further resources on the timing of elections in post-conflict and fragile situations is available in the political systems guide.