Categorization of States Beyond Strong and Weak

Tikuisis, Peter; Carment, David

doi:10.5334/sta.483

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their work focused on the state as an organizational structure that fares war, fosters economic growth, and must come to terms with civil society. This resonates well with issues addressed under the labels of "authority, capacity and legitimacy"-albeit with varying definitions-in the fragility debate (Brinkerhoff 2011;Call 2011;Carment et al 2010;Grävingholt et al 2015;Tikuisis and Carment 2017). But the empirical base of the earlier debate was largely restricted to studies of particular sectors in particular countries or regions (e.g., Wade 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Like for the other dimensions, we focus exclusively on the demonstrated ability of the state to fulfill a function internally. Tikuisis and Carment (2017) include "international recognition" in their definition of legitimacy, blurring the distinction between states that lack support within (e.g., Syria) and those that lack support in the international community (e.g., Taiwan). While international recognition is undoubtedly an interesting field of study, it is separate from the focus on the domestic functionality of a state that guides our analysis in line with most of the academic and policy-oriented state fragility literature.…”

Section: The Concept Of State Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We draw on both observational and expert coded data to measure the three dimensions, and employ a model-based clustering approach to identify groups of similar countries, as proposed by us in Grävingholt et al (2015). Tikuisis and Carment (2017) have also recently provided a typology based on some of these principles; their approach, however, has limitations in conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation, which we seek to overcome. Our aggregation method allows us to identify empirical groups (i.e., constellations of fragility) based on observable, continuous traits-in the absence of any direct indicator of group membership and without the need to manually (and to a certain extent arbitrarily) define thresholds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a typology of states that distinguishes constellations of state fragility based on empirical patterns. State fragility is here defined as deficiencies in one or more of three core functions of the state. These functions include violence control, implementation capacity, and empirical legitimacy. Violence control refers to the state's ability to manage the uses of violence within society. Implementation capacity refers to the state's ability to provide basic public services. Empirical legitimacy refers to the population's consent to the state's claim to rule. Employing three to four indicators per dimension for 171 countries over the period 2005-2015 and finite mixture model clustering, we find six dominant constellations that represent different types of state dysfunctionality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: The Concept Of State Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Usually, however, the definition of a fragile state revolves around ‘the lack of capacity and willingness to perform key government functions for the benefit of all citizens’ (OECD, 2014; OECD/DAC, 2008b). Not surprisingly, most violent internal conflicts and subsequent humanitarian crises occur in fragile states (Tikuises and Carment, 2017, pp. 8, 15–16).…”

Section: The Emergence Of State Fragility As a Discourse Shaping Intementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DRC is a notoriously fragile state, as indicated by its poor ranking on state‐fragility indexes. In the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Fragility Index (Tikuises and Carment, 2017), which focuses on authority, legitimacy, and capacity, only Afghanistan scored worse. In the Brookings Institution's Index of State Weakness in the Developing World (2008), which focuses on four areas of public management—economic welfare provision, political institutions effectiveness and legitimacy of the system of governance, physical security, and social welfare (Rice and Patrick, 2008)—the DRC is the third weakest country in the world .…”

Section: The Drc and State Fragilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Humanitarian governance and the consequences of the state‐fragility discourse in the Democratic Republic of Congo's health sector

Aembe

Dijkzeul

2019

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines how the discourse on state fragility affects the preferences of key actors in humanitarian governance for different types of health‐sector interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It argues that, instead of focusing on the actual meaning of state fragility, attention should be paid to interactive processes around the discourse among stakeholders in the health sector. The lack of consensus on state fragility influences humanitarian governance, especially the perceptions of and interactions between the host government, donors, and international non‐governmental organisations. The latter have legitimised the persistence of vertical, emergency‐based interventions by emphasising state fragility, whereas state officials have preferred to assert political statehood and a higher degree of control. Nevertheless, they agree that donors’ financial contributions ensure the survival of the public health sector. Looking ahead, a policy coalition based on harmonised views about addressing fragility is necessary for effective engagement and the sustainability of interventions, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

show abstract

Fragility, Health and the Risk Paradigm: A Health‐Sensitive Framework

Vaughan‐Lee,

Morinière,

Stroupe

2024

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognising that fragile contexts present a significant challenge to the Sustainable Development Goals, this paper examines the relationship between fragility and health, proposing a health‐sensitive conceptual framework for understanding the impact of fragility on health outcomes. Through a comprehensive literature review and comparison of existing fragility frameworks, the study identifies five key characteristics of fragility: alignment with the risk paradigm; multidimensionality; systems perspective; state‐society relationship; and appreciating fragility in relation to ‘contexts’ rather than ‘states’. In doing so, the paper highlights the need for a multidimensional approach to fragility that includes a distinct health dimension in addition to political, security, economic, social, environmental domains. Rather than proposing a way to score or measure fragility, the authors argue in favour of a nuanced and dynamic understanding of fragility based on the interactions between the different dimensions of fragility, emphasising the impact on/interactions with health.

show abstract

Categorization of States Beyond Strong and Weak

Cited by 13 publications

References 33 publications

Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States

Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States

Humanitarian governance and the consequences of the state‐fragility discourse in the Democratic Republic of Congo's health sector

Fragility, Health and the Risk Paradigm: A Health‐Sensitive Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About