What factors should donors consider when identifying an approach to reverse decline in fragile states? How do fragile states differ from those that are stable and able to pursue development? This paper by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) outlines a strategy for its engagement with fragile states. It details how USAID can respond effectively by identifying strategic priorities, initial directions for programming and a new management and administrative approach.
Fragile states occur where development and governance has failed, the consequences of which can have a worldwide effect. USAID’s fragile states strategy was developed in response to addressing security issues, an increased interest in reducing poverty and a need for greater contextual understanding. Based on an analysis of previous experience and an identification of gaps in current responses to fragile states, USAID have identified a more strategic approach.
This approach has four main aspects:
- Analysing and monitoring the internal dynamics of fragile states. This will enable an informed assessment of risk, allow strategic priority setting among and within countries and more effective targeting of the sources of fragility.
- Strategic programming focusing on priorities identified, sources of fragility, both short and long term impact, appropriate measurement systems and importance to US foreign policy. These will differ depending on whether the state is vulnerable or in a crisis.
- Use of a fragile states business model to bring the vision to reality. The main features include a more effective response in strategic planning, reporting, budgeting, operational response and administrative procedures.
Identification of priorities that reflect the realities within fragile states: security, stability, reform and capacity of institutions. The uniqueness and complexity of fragile states will call for a careful analysis of the context and subsequently developing appropriate strategies.
USAID has considerable experience in fragile states and has identified the following key lessons from past experience and through identifying gaps in current responses:
- Security is essential for progress within fragile states. USAID is currently constrained by a number of security issues.
- Weak governance is at the centre of fragility. USAID need to address this as one of the sources of the problem. Weak institutions with limited capacity contribute to weak governance, however, USAID tends to be focused on policy reform rather than institution building.
- There needs to be more research into what enables turnaround in fragile states and the most effective role for the donor in the process.
- An integrated analysis, response strategies and operations and shared responsibility for decisions are required. An effective response to fragile states requires a coherent relationship with agencies of the U.S. Government and effective relationships with other partners.
- Fragile states need a stable funding source but with flexibility in the deployment of funds.
- It is vital to have an early warning system to prompt a rapid response to fragile states showing vulnerability.
