The Ubiquity of State Fragility: Fault Lines in the Categorisation and Conceptualisation of Failed and Fragile States

Abstract

In the last three decades, the categories of fragile and failed states have gained significant importance in the fields of law, development, political science and international relations. The wider discourse plays a key role in guiding the policies of international community and multilateral institutions and has also led to the emergence of a plethora of indices and rankings to measure and classify state fragility. A critical and theoretical analysis of these matrices brings to light three crucial aspects that the current study takes as its departure point. First, the formulas and conceptual paradigms show that fragility of states is far more ubiquitous than is generally recognised, and that the so-called successful and stable states are a historical, political and geographical anomaly. Second, in the absence of an agreed definition of a successful state or even that of a failed or fragile state, the indicators generally rely on negative definitions to delineate the failed and fragile state. They generally suggest that their reading is built on a Weberian ideal–typical state, which takes the idea of monopoly over legitimate violence as its starting point. The third and final point suggests that the indicators and rankings, misconstruing the Weberian ideal–typical state, actually end up comparing fragile states against an ideal–mythical state. The article argues that this notional state is not only ahistorical and apolitical, but it also carries the same undertones that have been the hallmark of theories of linear development, colonialism and imperialism.

Conceptual Perspectives on State Fragility

“…It is viewed as a reflection of Western perceptions of state efficiency, which may be viewed as universalist and derogative and which serves as a pretext for interventions and development efforts that can be counterproductive with a possibility of creating even more development problems (Call 2008;Escobar 2011;Nay 2013Nay , 2014Saeed 2020).…”

“…At the same time, the concept itself has been subject to criticism from both scholars and political leaders of the states, which have been labeled "fragile." Some critics rendered the concept useless and harmful and called for its abandonment because it is too vague and obscures the diversity of problems these states face (Call 2011;Nay 2014;Saeed 2020). The "State fragility" concept is also criticized as it has been used to justify international interventions based on the belief in the convergence of all nationstates (Hagman, Hoehne 2008).…”

Manufacturing Obedience: Coercion and Authority in Border Controls

“…Conceived as an important part of the civilizing process and the construction of state sovereignty, the centralization and monopoly of the use of legitimate force on the police, has been taken for granted and regarded as sign of political and civic progress, a benchmark to distinguish failed from strong states (Brodeur, 2003). In recent years, however, scholars questioned the assumed precondition of state's centralized violence for political order and denounced the western-centric scaffolding of such construct which neglects its imperial backdrop and the ambivalent and complex relationship between law, violence and state formation (Jaffe, 2013; Saeed, 2020; Taussig, 2007). So too, policing scholars have interrogated state coercive authority -that is the legally sanctioned power to constrain people's autonomy and freedom, including through physical force and violence- as a constitutive and distinctive aspect of the police.…”

Oral health system strengthening in fragile and conflict-affected states: A systematic review

“…Despite variations in terminology across the different indices that have evolved over time, a number of countries consistently appear on the list as fragile or extremely fragile [13][14][15][16]. FCAS categorisation and indices have only become prevalent during the past two decades [12]. However, various institutions and databases produce lists of armed conflicts and wars over longer period of time.…”

“…The definition of FCAS lacks consensus. McIntosh and Buckley [ 11 ] suggest that it often refers to ‘a fundamental failure of the state to perform functions necessary to meet citizens’ basic needs and expectations, including the assurance of basic security, maintenance of law and justice, and provision of basic services and economic opportunities.’ To measure fragility and potential failure of states, various indices and metrics have been developed based on variable criteria for quantification [ 12 ]. Annually, the World Bank group provides an updated harmonised list of 'fragile and conflict-affected situations' to aid the group working in challenging and complex environments, as well as coordinating support in the most vulnerable and marginalised communities.…”