What are the implications for human security (conflict and poverty) of low state capacity and resilience? This paper from Conflict, Security & Development suggests a model of state fragility that is based on the state’s capacity to protect itself, deliver services and manage economic risks and on the state’s resilience in negotiating social relations and political risks. By isolating initial conditions in a country, the model gives a truer picture of performance. It suggests a more appropriate aid distribution that takes into account fragility.
The failure of traditional aid practices in ‘fragile states’ calls for a re-evaluation of governance as a development factor. There are several biases in existing methodologies for allocating aid and determining state fragility. Countries conceived as having poor policies and capacity levels receive less aid. By including initial conditions in their assessment of a country’s policy performance, such as the legacy of colonialism or wars, governments are penalised for situations over which they have little control. Countries weakened by exogenous shocks or internal dissension are particularly favoured in aid allocations. In viewing the problem of state fragility only in development terms, current definitions are of limited use for global security assessments since the worst global security risks may lie with large, middle income countries.
The state fragility model suggested here overcomes these biases and results in three rankings of fragile states: not fragile (NF), very fragile (VF) and somewhat fragile (SF). The state’s ability is defined by its resilience and capacity, which together determine both the nature and the extent of its fragility.
- Initial or structural conditions have a strong impact on development and security outcomes but they are not subject to state performance.
- Initial conditions are measured by per capita income, inequality, debt/GDP, infant mortality, malnutrition, primary product dominance and ‘landlockedness’. The less fragile a state, the better it will be able to manage poor initial conditions.
- Social services delivery and economic management measure capacity. Resilience is measured by voice, accountability and political freedom.
- Capacity and resilience are antecedents to security and development, where capacity is needed to achieve development and resilience is needed to mediate conflicting interests and achieve security.
- Although state fragility will most affect outcomes, there are exogenous factors that also affect development and security. These include international politics and the workings of the global economy.
Aid allocation based on state fragility takes a holistic approach in aiming to address development and security outcomes, thus tackling poverty and conflict.
- It is important not use policy as a criteria for aid allocation as this marginalises the most fragile states, which also tend to have the lowest levels of policy performance.
- Although better policy is important to raise growth levels and better utilise investment, cutting aid allocation to these countries is unlikely to enable a means of improvement.
- Given the negative effect of weak resilience on fragility and security, more analysis of very fragile countries is necessary to avert conflict and thereby improve security outcomes.
- In bypassing government structures, humanitarian aid fails to address fragility in itself, as it does not deal with capacity. More aid should be allocated to the countries with more fragile states.
- When it is efficiently channelled, aid can enable long term planning as opposed to crisis management. Vulnerable countries require particular consistency and commitment in aid flows.
