Abstract
This edited volume provides a long overdue contribution to the critical analysis of the definition of state ‘fragility’ and, a critique of aid flows to, and outside interventions in, ‘failed states’. The volume benefits from contributions by prominent academics and development practitioners from a range of disciplines to provide an interdisciplinary and multifaceted approach to the context-specific application of the controversial state labels of ‘Fragile, Failed, [and] Pariah’. In this respect, 11 detailed case studies of countries ranked as ‘very high alert’ in the Fund for Peace’s Failed States Index are provided to elucidate the primary causes of fragility in each context and, in so doing, to determine the applicability of the Failed States Index in real terms. The volume is split into three sections: the first provides a theoretical overview of the problems of development in difficult socio-political contexts, the second presents the case studies and the third combines the critiques and scenarios in the first two sections to draw out alternative approaches to development in difficult socio-political contexts.
The volume’s range of unique case studies provides contextual snippets of the particular problems created by universal labels and categories for classifying the level of good governance, development and reliability of states and, as a result, the contradictions that emerge. Costas Laoutides (Chapter 4) outlines one such contradiction. He explores how ‘unrecognised states achieve some form of viability’ (p. 73) and argues that reluctance to aid ‘de facto’ states and their labelling as ‘failed’ or ‘pariah’ maintains this status quo by forcing citizens in these states to rely on ‘smuggling’ and non-conventional aid through diasporas or patron states in order to survive and achieve some form of prosperity. Thus, the reluctance to provide aid isolates de facto states, excludes alternatives and enforces the social conditions defined by the labels being attributed to them in the first place. Similarly, Cai Wilkinson (Chapter 7) writing about development in Kyrgyzstan, highlights the conflicts between Western ideals for post-Soviet states and the perseverance of the former Soviet Union’s institutions that continue to exert influence on state-building in Kyrgyzstan. He outlines the contradiction of how outside-driven efforts at state-building have in fact led to Kyrgyzstan’s classification as a failed state. The result is that little to no assistance is provided for citizens who are forced to seek out support elsewhere. The chapter argues that rather than being a ‘failed state’, in Kyrgyzstan ‘state-building endeavours, regardless of the approach taken, have not resulted in the construction of a state that seeks to serve its population as a whole, rather than the interests of a small political elite’ (p. 156). Wilkinson points out that this situation has been largely influenced by the international tug of war that Kyrgyzstan has been involved in, caught between conflicting development ideologies that favoured a top-down approach to state-building focused on Western strategic interests in the region.
The case studies presented in this volume reflect many of the themes and objectives set out in the introductory chapter by Ware (Chapter 1). They explore specific factors contributing to fragility (p. 7) and challenge the narrowness of the application of terminologies (p. 12), emphasizing in the process, the need to focus on the effects, or ineffectiveness, of outsider-driven policies on fragile or failing states (pp. 7 and 9). Framing the contributions of the volume further, Damien Kingsbury (Chapter 3) poses the question that ‘while development environments do differ, does the core goal of development, to help produce ‘good change’ or enhance capabilities, also differ?’ The latter seems to be reflective of the wider scope of the focus on context in the case studies making up the volume. Kingsbury suggests that external aid may have in fact further extenuated the current situation in the states being written about, especially when Western definitions of a modern state may be at loggerheads with understandings, traditions and the history of these different social contexts where patron–client relations and factionalism are still the norm. The latter is brought out clearly in Max Kelly’s (Chapter 6) analysis of foreign aid delivery in Malawi, where the state’s relationship with international donors has entrenched the country’s dependency on aid and left it on the brink of chaos. Likewise, Jonathan Makuwira (Chapter 11) and Anthony Ware (Chapter 12) illustrate how outsider-driven actions and sanctions against Zimbabwe and Myanmar respectively, were aimed at addressing human rights abuses and provoking internal change, but resulted in the further isolation of the countries and imposed restrictions on much needed aid delivery that could have been used to address, at least in part, the concerns being outlined by the international community.
The many stated objectives and complex themes of the volume are challenging to address given the limited number of case studies and, presumably as a result of constraints on space, the limited detail provided in each case study. Anthony Ware, the editor, acknowledges these limitations in the Preface (p. xiii) yet in his introduction, he nonetheless states that the contributions in the volume are also aimed at ‘more-effective policy and engagement’ (p. 6). Whilst the volume arguably provides a varied critique of current engagement with fragile, failing and pariah states, as well as a context-specific platform for that critique, it does very little in terms of providing a general framework for the formation or improvement of policy in this area. However, the volume does effectively illustrate some of the many shortcomings of Western approaches to development in fragile and failing states and the contradictions inherent in such labelling.
One slight setback in the organization of the volume, which was the cause of some frustration, were tables being presented in the wrong chapters and a number of chapter references that were also incorrect (e.g., p. 301). Otherwise, the volume is an enjoyable read that provides a much needed critique of standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches to development in difficult socio-political contexts. This volume will definitely be of interest to researchers, development practitioners, policymakers and students.