In many ways, the state-building agenda has evolved from the governance agenda. However, with its emphasis on ‘foundational’ issues, it is a more holistic as well as a more ambitious approach. State-building is about constructing the foundations of the very (government) edifice within which governance ought to operate. Without the construction of this edifice, governance interventions cannot have an impact. At the same time, ensuring the quality and integrity of government is an important dimension of the state-building process, including generating the legitimacy of a new or re-emerging state and contributing to the creation of a ‘nationwide public’ and a shared sense of the public realm. This paper seeks to contribute to a more conceptually informed understanding of state-building, adopting a political economy perspective.
Key Findings:
- State-building is now a major issue of concern, but it lacks conceptual clarity, including in language. There is a broad understanding that state-building is about controlling violence, establishing legitimacy and building capable and responsive institutions so as to foster a shared sense of the public realm. These are all long-term and potentially conflict-ridden processes.
- State-building is a leading priority in fragile (and mostly post-conflict) settings, but on-going state-building challenges persist in states in comparatively more ‘normal’ developing settings.
- There has been much debate in international policy circles about state functions in terms of outputs such as social service delivery, economic management and the delivery of justice. While achieving outputs are the key rationale for supporting state-building, it is important to pay sufficient attention to the core or constitutive dimensions of the state – including the political settlement, security and basic administrative structures. If these constitutive domains remain weak, states are not able to deliver output functions in a sustained and reliable way. This should form the basis for thinking about prioritisation, sequencing, state functions, etc.
- Donors face (at least) three significant challenges in their engagement with state-building. These include political economy challenges, such as corruption and neo-patrimonialism, which can fundamentally hamper the state-building process; 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.
Recommendations:
- There is a need for greater conceptual clarity with regard to ‘state-building’, ‘fragile states’, ‘nation-building’ and related terms, especially in policy usage.
- While state formation and state-building trajectories have varied considerably over time, lessons from historical experiences are relevant and should inform thinking about current and future state-building trajectories. Knowledge gaps and the constraints that impede donors from acting on lessons learned must be addressed more fully and honestly.
- State-building efforts need to be shaped and led from within if they are to be legitimate and sustainable.
- Within the international community, it is essential to elaborate a more encompassing, holistic and realistic approach to state-building that focuses on the constitutive domains and the creation of a nation-wide public.
- Donors need to be more fully aware of dilemmas and trade-offs. Donors need to be much more aware of the tensions that may be embedded in the state-building model they are seeking to promote.
- There needs to be greater congruence between the ambitiously interventionist agenda embraced by the international community and the resources it is willing/able to commit to such transformative state-building efforts.