Other Reads on Stabilization of Fragile States

Stabilizing Fragile States

By Joseph Siegle, Global Dialogue, July 2011

Stabilizing fragile states is a central security challenge of the twenty-first century. Fragile states pose a seemingly intractable problem, but there has in fact been a commendable record of stabilizing post-conflict and transitioning states over the past two decades. Success requires integrated political, security, and development efforts, sustained over time and focused on the overarching challenge: building legitimate and effective state structures that can earn and maintain the support of their populations.

U.S. Policy Toward Fragile States: An Integrated Approach to Security and Development

By Stewart Patrick, Center for Global Development, 2008

An updated version of an earlier work by Patrick for the Center for Global Development. Patrick argues that fragile states do not compromise a monolithic phenomenon, but can take on different forms and contribute to a variety of transnational threats in distinct ways. Thus, the U.S. and other international actors must tailor multi-pronged diplomatic, defense, and development (3D) engagement strategies to assist these threats to global security. Patrick reviews U.S. efforts to date, and finds a variety of well-intentioned but ultimately insufficient inter-agency and multi-lateral collaborative efforts. Five specific tasks to overcome this deficient response to transnational threats and state instability are offered for the Obama administration.

Concepts and Dilemmas of State Building in Fragile Situations: From Fragility to Resilience

By Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008

State fragility is complex but often begins with a divergence between citizen expectations and a government’s ability to deliver services. Whether caused by unforeseeable exogenous shocks or an erosion of legitimacy due to élite misbehavior, this divergence can be reduced through state-building efforts that prioritize good governance and democratic processes in capacity building efforts.

“State-Building for Peace”: Navigating an Arena of Contradictions

By Alina Rocha Menocal, Overseas Development Institute, 2009

This brief work examines the differences and similarities between “state-building” and “peace-building.” Many international actors often conflate the two, with repercussions on programs intended to assist fragile states. For example, efforts to forge peace often require the acceptance of political arrangements that later undermine state stability, such as working with elites at the expense of forming an inclusive government. The authors offer recommendations for donors, some of which may be useful for field practitioners in state-building efforts.

Closing the Sovereignty Gap: An Approach to State-Building

By Ashraf Ghani, Clare Lockhart, and Michael Carnahan, Overseas Development Institute, 2005

Three analysts with experience working in unstable regions develop a template for strengthening weak states. There are 10 fundamental functions a state must fulfill in order to achieve stability and sovereignty. From this basic conception of state responsibilities, a “report card” can developed to assess particular “sovereignty gaps” within weak states, or areas where a state cannot fulfill its fundamental tasks. To address these gaps, donors can develop and implement a “sovereignty strategy,” a guideline for which is developed by the authors with the proviso that strategies must be tailored to the context of differing states.

USAID Fragile States Strategy

By United States Agency for International Development, 2005

USAID’s fragile states strategy emphasizes the need for detailed information on the internal dynamics of weak states in order to develop appropriate goals, priorities, and strategies. The strategy also outlines ways in which USAID might work with U.S. interagency partners to develop and reform fragile states.

Security Topics: Stabilization of Fragile States