Dysfunctional state institutions, trust, and governance in areas of limited statehood

Abstract

Areas of limited statehood where the state is absent or dysfunctional are rarely ungoverned or ungovernable spaces. The provision of rules and regulations, as well as of public goods and services -governance -does not necessarily depend on the existence of functioning state institutions. How can this be explained? To begin with, we identify functional equivalents to state institutions that fail to govern hierarchically. Moreover, we focus on informal institutions based on trust that are endogenous to areas of limited statehood. Personalized trust among community members enables actors to overcome collective action problems and enhances the legitimacy of governance actors. The main challenge in areas of limited statehood, which are often characterized by social heterogeneity and deep social and cultural cleavages (particularly in post-conflict societies) is to move to generalized trust beyond the local level and to "imagined communities among strangers," despite dysfunctional state institutions. We propose two mechanisms: First, the more group-based identities are constructed in inclusive ways and the more group identities are crosscutting and overlapping, the more they lead to and maintain generalized trust. Second, experiences with fair and impartial institutions and governance practices -irrespective of whether state or non-state -also lead to generalized trust beyond the local level and allow for the upscaling of governance.

Distance, services, and citizen perceptions of the state in rural Africa

“…Finally, if better provision of public services is associated with increases in other government activities that citizens would prefer to avoid (e.g., tax collection, forestry permitting), they may not see a net benefit from the greater state presence that improved service delivery would require. Some of the literature we cite above supports this interpretation (e.g., Börzel & Risse, ; Krishna & Schober, ; MeTA, 2014).…”

“…BRINKERHOFF ET AL. | 113 literature we cite above supports this interpretation (e.g., B€ orzel & Risse, 2015;Krishna & Schober, 2014;MeTA, 2014).…”

Understanding what shapes varying perceptions of the procedural fairness of transboundary environmental decision-making processes

“…For example, the fact that civil society organizations do not perceive significantly less fairness relative to state actors and representatives of international nongovernmental organizations is a sign of progress in efforts to level the playing field and provide opportunities for meaningful participation of civil society organizations, which have traditionally been marginalized in policy processes in East Africa (Amutabi 2013, Sovacool andLinnér 2016). However, civil society organizations nevertheless assess procedural fairness significantly less favorably than development partners, suggesting that governance led by foreign aid agencies may not be "up-scaling" local or national policy processes in ways that enfranchise civil society actors (Börzel and Risse 2016). Meaningful participation may hinge upon the institutionalization of mechanisms explicitly designed to incorporate information, perspectives, and preferences of diverse policy actors, including smaller and more local organizations.…”

Selectively Assertive: Interventions of India’s Supreme Court to Enforce Environmental Laws

“…Scholars recognize the limits of state power in relation to societal actors [14] and why this leads to non-enforcement of rules by the Executive. These issues are salient in the literature on failed states [43][44][45] and areas of limited statehood [46]. There are at least three categories of explanations for enforcement failures.…”