Disaggregating state fragility: a method to establish a multidimensional empirical typology

Abstract

This conceptual and methodological article makes the case for a multidimensional empirical typology of state fragility. It presents a framework that defines fragile statehood as deficiencies in one or more of the core functions of the state: authority, capacity and legitimacy. Unlike available indices of state fragility, it suggests a route towards operationalisation that maintains this multidimensionality. The methodology presented should help in future research to identify clusters of countries that exhibit similar constellations of statehood, whereby 'constellation' refers to the specific mix of characteristics across the three dimensions. Such an identification of empirical types would fulfil a demand that exists both in academic research and among policy circles for finding a more realistic model of fragility at an intermediate level between single-case analyses and the far-too-broad category of state fragility.

Constellations of Fragility: an Empirical Typology of States

“…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).…”

“…The multidimensional concept of state fragility used in this article builds on Call (2011). 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.…”

State Fragility, International Development Policy, and Global Responses

“…All of these elements, in various combinations, are likely to play a role in a particular state's trajectory toward fragility, and if their impacts are unchecked, into failure. In response to this recognition, Grävingholt, Ziaja, and Kreibaum (2015) have developed a fragility measurement framework that incorporates its multidimensional character. However, one issue with broader measurement frameworks is that the more indicators that are included, the more difficult it is to distinguish the particularities of fragility from the general conditions associated with poverty and low levels of development Second, states are not uniformly fragile or strong.…”

An empirical analysis of state fragility and growth: The impact of state ineffectiveness and political violence

“…The proposal in this paper follows the line of recent work taking multidimensionality into account (e.g. Gravingholt et al 2015). However, it departs from these approaches in that it considers state ineffectiveness and political violence as the two dimensions of fragility and measures them separately using principal components analysis (PCA).…”