Fragile States: A Donor-serving Concept? Issues with Interpretations of Fragile Statehood in Afghanistan - Paper

The term 'fragile state' has become common currency in development circles since 9/11, especially as seen through a security lens as shown by Barakat and Larson's  "Fragile States: A Donor-serving Concept? Issues with Interpretations of Fragile Statehood in Afghanistan".  

Abstract

"Current conceptions and models of fragile statehood in conflict-affected contexts can serve the purposes of international donor governments over and above reconstruction and statebuilding. First, despite remaining ill-defined, the fragile state concept is widely utilized by donors to oversimplify analysis of complex political environments, such as that of Afghanistan, leading to inadequate bureaucratic responses. Second, current models of fragile statehood are unable to capture contextual or temporal dynamics, and invariably omit the contribution of international intervention to entrenching fragility. This is particularly the case in Afghanistan where the effects of international militarized stabilization responses have not been systematically included in fragility assessments, leading to increased insecurity. This article calls for a more nuanced approach to fragility and greater acknowledgement of the role donor governments can play in its entrenchment."

The underlying assumption of fragility in which weak central government = terrorism/regional contagion has meant that much of the focus has been centered on security responses. Moreover, the definition of fragility also assumes a definition of state (termed Weberian by the authors) that does not necessarily match the affected populations view. Fragility as a concept is very anchored in a nation-state system, in which it is both undermined (by acknowledging that the central government is not fully sovereign/legitimate) and reinforced (by making statebuilding around the central government).

Is the concept actually useful for anything? the label helps donors frame priorities by highlighting the sense of impending doom, crisis-prone, destabilizing the status quo and bringing a yet new haven for terrorist and criminals. However, from the 'recipient' point of view, this label is barely helpful (aside from bringing extra donor funds) as it tends to focus more on the container (the visible role of the state) rather than the content (the underlying political economy and cultural/social dynamics that may be the source of that weakness)

The authors, by using the case of Afghanistan, also put forth the claim that international assistance, by the way the understand and address this concept, are actually promoting fragility rather than diminishing. It is interesting how both donor and development community are promoting bottom-up (Community Driven Recovery) and top-down (Statebuilding) in parallel with a vague hope that they will meet at some point in the middle rather than acknowledging that fragile states are in that situation because of an ongoing multilevel societal crisis that may not fit the ready-made nation state model.