Since September 11, the ‘spillover effect’ – the presumed connection between weak states and a variety of transnational threats such as terrorism, weapons proliferation and organised crime – has been a key motivation behind foreign and aid policy. But is there any evidence to support the ‘spillover’ assertion? This paper from the Centre for Global Development explores the links between weak states and global threats, concluding that whilst weak states do often incubate global threats, this correlation is far from universal. A deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms linking the two is required.
The focus on weak and failing states as a threat to peace and security has become conventional wisdom, and a blanket connection between the two has been presumed. Policymakers have not considered which states are associated with which dangers, and reverse causality has never been tested. Answering these questions is essential for the design of effective policy interventions.
Weak states range along a spectrum from collapsed states to fragile “good performers”. They by no means all look alike. The evidence shows that the relationship between state weakness and spillovers does exist, but it varies:
- Weak states have often provided transnational terrorist organisations with multiple benefits such as training camps, but they may be less important to terrorist operations than widely believed. Not all weak and failed states are afflicted by terrorism.
- Failing and post-conflict states play a critical role in proliferation of small arms as well as weapons of mass destruction. This easy availability of weapons tends to weaken state capacity further, fuelling wars and fostering crime and impunity.
- Transnational organised criminal networks are drawn to environments where the rule of law is absent, such as those provided by weak states. The links however vary by different sectors. Money laundering, financial fraud and cyber crime are less obviously correlated with weak states.
- Violent conflict and complex emergencies often spill over porous borders and can have destabilising effects. The economic cost of state failure is borne by neighbouring countries.
- Weak and failing states may serve as important breeding grounds for new pandemics. Although there is no solid data on the link between state capacity and epidemics, the global infectious disease burden falls on low and middle income countries.
- Dependence on weak and failing states for energy supplies is risky, and will have negative ramifications on US foreign policy and national security objectives.
Analysts and policymakers need to identify which threats are most likely to arise from which countries and develop adequate responses. Four hypothesis should be tested to better understand the links between failed states and global security:
- The propensity of a country to generate spillovers will depend on whether weakness is the function of capacity, will or both.
- Particular transnational threats are likely to correlate with specific shortcomings in state capacity. Assessing these relationships will require breaking down state capacity into component parts and comparing weak states with a list of indicators.
- Some threats are more closely correlated with the weakest quantile of states, others with the next tier. This might imply that a state need not possess capacity or commitment gaps across the board to pose a major risk of spillovers. Identifying where those gaps exist is key.
- Transnational forces exert an powerful reciprocal impact by weakening state capacities in the developing world.
