The heightened sense of insecurity created by the war on terror has lead to a focus on ‘failed states’ as a threat to world peace. But this perception is based on a flawed understanding of state recession. The relevant analytical enquiry is not whether the state is failing, but instead ‘For whom is the state failing and how?’ – which allows for an understanding of how different actors within the state pursue different interests. This article from the Institute of Applied International Studies in Oslo, published in the European Journal of Development Research, argues that the concept of state failure is only useful in the context of human security, where it can help us to understand coping strategies within states.
When we talk of ‘state failure’ we assume states’ weaknesses are linked to the likelihood of breakup or secession, and that all states are supposed to function in the same way, on a spectrum from good to bad. Neither of these are sound assumptions. Furthermore, to label something as “failed” is a normative judgement that is only meaningful in comparison to something else. Further problems emerge if we use the term ‘state failure’ to focus our analysis on the state and its institutions – because in many cases the power relations that matter for regime security are private and informalised.
- The assumption about state sameness underlying the concept of failed states is a misnomer. The complex, fluid web of political, economic and ideational relationships that shape, enable or prohibit certain coping strategies, alliances and elite decision-making must be understood.
- Different actors within the state have different interests and the goal of the regime may be to create and sustain structures of power that are generally understood as state failure.
- While some states may fail to provide an environment of human security, they may be efficient providers of regime security.
The term ‘State failure’ is only useful as a basis for investigation into human security – that is, a state’s ability or willingness to function in a manner conducive to the welfare of the majority of its citizens. If we ask for whom the state is failing, and how, we can understand the lived realities and coping strategies of the affected population, as well as the role of non-state actors.
- Failed states cannot be viewed in isolation. They do not exist in a vacuum. They form networks of alliances within their regions, both formal and informal. Understanding this is crucial to finding solutions to problems of insecurity, development and governance.
- The recession of a state must be understood in terms of agency of both state and non-state actors, including not just regime elites and security services but also national and international business interests and crime networks.
- The agency of non-state actors, particularly armed resistance groups, must be taken into account. It is often assumed that state failure is due to crippling macro-economic forces, rather than as something planned and instigated.
