What is state building? How can external actors support this complex and context-specific process in fragile states? This discussion paper from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development sees state building as an internal political process of state-society bargaining. While successful state building will almost always be the product of domestic action, it can be supported by well-targeted, responsive international assistance. Donors need to focus on the local political processes that create public institutions and generate their legitimacy in the eyes of a state’s population.
International actors have not yet incorporated into policies or practice a sufficiently nuanced understanding of fragility, or developed appropriately contextualised strategies for state building in relation to it. Fragility arises from weaknesses in the political process through which citizen’s expectations of the state and state expectations of citizens are reconciled. Reaching equilibrium in this negotiation over the social contract is the critical if not sole determinant of resilience, and disequilibrium the determinant of fragility.
Processes of state formation are largely domestically driven and international state building assistance has a limited role to play. Further findings in relation to fragility and state formation are that:
- There is a spectrum of fragility; it is found in all but the most developed and institutionalised states.
- The opposite of fragility is not stability, but resilience – the ability to cope with changes in capacity, effectiveness or legitimacy.
- Resilience derives from a combination of capacity, resources, effective institutions and legitimacy. All of these are underpinned by political processes that mediate state-society relations and expectations.
State building strategy should be based on the resilience of the state-society contract, and so context-specific analysis of the historical and contemporary dynamics of social contract negotiations is required. Where governments are trying to foster this contract, a multi-donor strategy and direct budget support are appropriate. Where this contract is not in place, political reforms or alternative delivery mechanisms are needed to meet human needs. Further implications for donors are that:
- A focus on formal and informal governance structures that address inequality and promote accountability is likely to promote stability over time.
- State building can be more important than poverty reduction as a framework for engagement, particularly in divided states. State building processes should frame, but not replace, post-conflict needs assessment and poverty reduction strategy papers.
- Three areas of policy are important in post-war states: political processes that legitimate the state, rule of law (including economic governance) and security (including reconstructing state security apparatus).
- To prevent violent conflict or crisis, policy on authoritarian states should identify opportunities for engagement with state institutions, such as health provision. These may have minimal impact on state legitimacy but should reduce the risk of state collapse. Diplomatic mechanisms should be the focus, rather than development assistance.
