• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»State fragility and social cohesion

State fragility and social cohesion

Helpdesk Report
  • Evie Browne
November 2013

Question

What is the current state of knowledge in the literature on state fragility regarding social cohesion as either a negative or positive factor? What are donor approaches to building social cohesion in fragile states?

Summary

This report reviews the relationship between social cohesion and state fragility – focusing on literature from 2010 onwards. There is no clear empirical understanding in the literature of how social cohesion contributes to state resilience or fragility, as it is very difficult to measure, and to assess independently other variables that impact on state fragility.

Key points from this review are:

  • There is a strong consensus that a lack of social cohesion contributes to state fragility, and that social cohesion can contribute to stability, although this is not clearly supported by evidence.
  • Lack of social cohesion is seen to contribute to local-level conflict, which may escalate; lack of trust between groups; and lack of trust with the state.
  • Social cohesion may be undermined by state or elite actions which deliberately discriminate or mobilise identity politics for personal gain. This contributes to fragility.
  • Social cohesion appears to contribute to stability through increasing trust in state institutions and representatives and creating a greater capacity for collective action.
  • Vertical social capital with the state can cause community leaders to lose legitimacy in their constituencies.
  • Strong bonding capital within a group has the potential to allow mobilisation of that group for negative purposes, such as the Rwandan genocide.
  • It is of high importance to recognise the contested nature of attempting to foster social cohesion as part of a development programme – especially programmes designed and implemented by external actors. Cohesion is essentially an endogenous process, which cannot necessarily be designed by outsiders. It is also a highly politically sensitive issue, as it approaches questions of social engineering, and should be treated with caution.
  • Donors tend to measure social cohesion outcomes in terms of increase in associational life; decreases in community violence; greater trust in others; and attitudes towards the government.
  • A number of usual development approaches have been adapted to incorporate social cohesion outcomes, including Community-Driven Development/Reconstruction, social protection, and jobs. These have mixed evidence in regards to impact, but show at least some positive results.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Related Content

Infrastructure Project Failures in Colombia
Helpdesk Report
2018
PFM and corruption
E-Learning
2016
Webinar video: Public Financial Management
E-Learning
2015
Faith-based organisations, conflict resolution and anti-corruption
Helpdesk Report
2014
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more