This article argues that state-building represents a lengthy process whereby the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy are forged and strengthened to enable the state to deliver across key domains. Despite the emerging policy consensus that building institutions and strengthening state legitimacy are important, donors have in practice neglected both authority and legitimacy, and supported only a narrow approach to building capacity. If development practitioners wish to address state-building more effectively, a more sophisticated approach is required, reflecting a wider conceptualization of state-building – one that embraces legitimacy and authority, as well as capacity.
The paper is divided into six parts:
- The first part reviews theories of state-building and argues that there are three core dimensions of functional states that emerge from the academic literature: authority, capacity and legitimacy.
- The second part summarizes donor experience with state-building so-far. It concludes that donors have been overly focused on delivering outputs and building state capacity.
- The third part summarizes what can be called the emerging policy consensus among donors and other international actors regarding state-building. It concludes that donors are developing an increasingly sophisticated view of state-building, which recognizes institutions, legitimacy, and the need for gradual, ‘best-fit’ reforms. However, this emerging consensus has not yet been translated into practice and,in any event, riskily underestimates the importance of re-establishing state authority.
- The fourth part suggests a re-conceptualization of the emerging consensus based on the three core dimensions of statehood identified in the literature review.
- The fifth component briefly sketches out a multi-level diagnostic approach to help donors identify context-specific state-building challenges in different fragile states based on the proposed framework.
- The sixth part highlights some strategic implications that can emerge from the proposed framework, derived from the current literature about what works in fragile states.
By better understanding, disaggregating and investigating authority, capacity and legitimacy in fragile states, donors can derive more targeted interventions and better prioritize these interventions to advance state building. The article suggests that a multi-level diagnostic based on the three dimensions of resilient states can help donors identify context-specific state-building interventions. It also highlights some strategic implications that can emerge from the proposed framework on how donors can help strengthen authority, capacity, and legitimacy in fragile states.
