Logo image
Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism

S. Hameiri
Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol.10(2), pp.122-149
06/2007
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

In the post-Cold War era, a voluminous literature has developed to define failed states, identify the causes and parameters of failure, and devise ways for dealing with the problems associated with state fragility and failure. While there is some theoretical diversity within this literature - notably between neoliberal institutionalists and neo-Weberian institutionalists - state failure is commonly defined in terms of state capacity. Since capacity is conceived in technical and 'objective' terms, the political nature of projects of state construction (and reconstruction) is masked. Whereas the existence of social and political struggles of various types is often recognized by the failed states literature, these conflicts are abstracted from political and social institutions. Such an analysis then extends into programmes that attempt to build state capacity as part of projects that seek to manage social and political conflict. Ascertaining which interests are involved and which interests are left out in such processes is essential for any understanding of the prospects or otherwise of conflict resolution.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Source: InCites

Metrics

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Citation topics
6 Social Sciences
6.27 Political Science
6.27.50 International Relations
Web Of Science research areas
International Relations
Political Science
ESI research areas
Social Sciences, general
Logo image