There is consensus in the literature that a resilient state must be able to deliver certain functions which meet citizens’ needs and expectations. But there is much debate about what these functions should be, and whether it is possible to establish a hierarchy among them.
DFID and other donors distinguish between state ‘survival’ functions and ‘expected’ functions (see Box 3). A literature review by Meagher (2011) observes a consensus in the literature favouring survival functions as the priority. For example, Whaites (2008, p.6) proposes the following order of state functions: (1) political settlement; (2) survival functions; and (3) expected functions.
Box 3: State survival and expected functions
The ‘survival functions’ (also known as the ‘constitutive domains’ or ‘core’ state functions) of the state include: the political settlement; security – monopoly of violence, justice, and the rule of law; and basic administrative and fiscal capacity. Survival functions help to consolidate the authority of the state (DFID, 2009).
The ‘expected functions’ (also known as the ‘output domains’) are public services that the state can provide. The expected functions could include: economic management; service delivery (health, education, water) and infrastructure; employment programmes and job creation; personal safety and access to justice (beyond the basic level provided in state survival); social protection/safety nets; anti-corruption measures; and voice and accountability (e.g. fair elections, free media). Expected functions relate to the legitimacy of the state.
Sources: DFID, 2009; Fritz & Rocha Menocal, 2007, p.5; Whaites, 2008; Haider, 2012.
Regarding survival functions, the literature is divided over whether political governance or security should be prioritised. There is also disagreement on the ordering of reforms related to expected state functions (e.g. economic reform, service delivery, democratic reform, and public financial management). DFID does not propose a hierarchy of functions, arguing that action in both areas is required to generate a positive statebuilding dynamic.
However, there are criticisms of this conceptualisation and a limited literature base to substantiate the arguments about which survival functions states should perform or prioritise. In a scoping study for DFID, interviewees questioned whether it was helpful to analytically split the survival and expected functions of the state (McLean Hilker, Garrasi, & Griffith, 2008). The functions that a state is expected to perform differ according to the historical and cultural factors that shape state-society relations in different contexts. Many view these discussions as essentially political, since they relate to the role and size of the state in relation to other authorities and groups in society.
- DFID (2009). Building the State and Securing the Peace (Emerging Policy Paper). London: DFID
See document online - Fritz, V & Rocha Menocal, A. (2007). Understanding Statebuilding from a Political Economy Perspective. An Analytical and Conceptual Paper on Processes, Embedded Tensions and Lessons for International Engagement (Report for DFID’s Effective and Fragile States Team). London: ODI.
See document online - McLean Hilker, L., Garrasi, D. & Griffith, L. with Purdekova, A. & Clarke, J. (2008). Scoping a long-term research programme on conflict, state fragility and social cohesion (Report prepared for DFID).
See document online - Meagher, P. (2011). Statebuilding in fragile and post-conflict situations: a literature review. The Urban Institute and the World Bank/PRMPS. Unpublished.
- Whaites, A. (2008). States in development: understanding state-building (DFID Working Paper). London: DFID.
See document online
