Aid allocation and fragile states

This chapter summarizes research on aid allocation and effectiveness, highlighting the current findings of recent research on aid allocation to fragile states. Fragile states are defined by the donor community as those with either critically poor policies or poorly performing institutions, or both. The chapter examines the research findings in the broader context of research and analysis on how aid should and is being allocated across all developing countries. Various aid allocation models and their implications for aid to fragile states are considered. The chapter also looks at types of instruments and their sequencing in fragile states.

National identity in fragile states: insights from tertiary students in Melanesia and Timor-Leste

The challenges of nation building in Melanesia and Timor-Leste have often been neglected in the regional focus on state-building challenges. High levels of ethno-linguistic diversity, combined with an array of regional, historical and cultural divisions, continue to present obstacles to the creation of a cohesive sense of national political community leading these nations to be labelled ‘fragile’. This paper presents the findings of a comparative study on the attitudes of tertiary students in Melanesia and Timor-Leste to national identity and nation building. A strong pan-Melanesian pattern of group identification was identified, common to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. The ongoing importance of traditional authority and custom in informing conceptions of political community and identity was evident in all four case study sites, but was in each case matched by indicators of respect for modern state authority. The survey also reveals some significant gender differences in key attitudes towards national identity, including the role of traditional authorities. Most importantly, the study reveals high degrees of national pride, and faith in democratic principles and citizenship; but conversely, low levels of pride in contemporary democratic performance and inter-group tolerance.

Development in fragile states and situations: theory and critique

This chapter examines the evolution of ‘fragile’ and ‘failed’ state terminology noting the background to the ideas and examining the theorisation around the concepts, before surveying the literature on development in ‘fragile’ and ‘failed’ states in some depth. The OECD Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations are examined in particular, together with the follow-up OECD fragile state evaluations and related literature, as the primary and often normative guidance on development in ‘fragile’ or ‘failed’ states. A range of alternatives and critiques are explored. This chapter, therefore, sets the literature and theory in place as a backdrop for the diversity of case studies presented in Part II of this volume.

Vulnerability, trade, financial flows and state failure in small island developing states

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are very different to other developing countries. Relative to GDP they have the highest levels of foreign trade and aid receipts of all developing countries. Remittances from abroad are a far more important source of income for SIDS, and some depend very heavily on export revenues. The quality of governance varies tremendously among SIDS, they are over-represented among countries classified as fragile states and many are prone to state failure. These and other factors combine to make SIDS highly vulnerable to external economic shocks. Achieving development in SIDS is as a consequence an especially complex task that requires an understanding of the roles played by aid, trade, remittances and governance in these countries. This paper looks at these issues, along with providing various stylised facts about SIDS. In so doing it serves as a background and broad contextual setting for the papers that follow in this Special Issue on 'Fragility and Development in Small Island Developing States'.

Development in a fragile pariah state: Myanmar 1990-2010

Myanmar was not only a ‘fragile state’ by most definitions during the 1990s and 2000s, but was concurrently isolated as an international ‘pariah’. The complexity of this paradoxical combination of poverty, fragility, pro-economic growth polity and international isolation created an enigmatic context for international agencies, and one in which existing frameworks for development in ‘fragile states’ do not appear overly relevant. Nonetheless, Myanmar experienced a surprising level of development activity, with equally surprising signs of effectiveness. This paper explores this activity, identifying actors, roles, approaches, and modalities of interaction with structures and authorities found to be most effective. The paper is divided into four sections, offering an overview of the historical context, summarising field observations, considering the effectiveness of interventions, and discussing these observations in the light of fragile state policy.

Development in difficult sociopolitical contexts fragile, failed, pariah preface

This edited volume explores development in the so-called 'fragile', 'failed' and 'pariah' states. It examines the literature on both fragile states and their development, and offers eleven case studies on countries ranking in the 'very high alert' and 'very high warning' categories in the Fund for Peace Failed States Index.

Beyond the usual suspects: complexity of fragility and analytical framework

Development in so-called ‘fragile states’ has become a key priority for the international community over the past few years, but international actors have not yet adequately incorporated sufficiently nuanced understandings of fragility into policies or practices. The increasing proportion of the world’s poor living in fragile contexts, the depth of human need in these contexts, and the potential regional spillover implications of this fragility, all make this an urgent concern. This chapter examines this growing need and discusses the origins and methodological approach in this volume, before setting up the rest of the book with definitions and an analysis framework. The chapter concludes with a summary of the book chapters and contributions.

Critiques and alternatives: development in contexts of fragility

The question of effective development in fragile contexts is increasingly significant, but as the literature and case studies throughout this volume have shown, the existing literature and principles for development effectiveness are built on a narrow conceptualisation of fragility. By exploring case studies that go well-beyond the ‘usual’ examples of ‘fragile states’, this volume has demonstrated that a much broader range of fragile contexts (set of causes and characteristics) exist, requiring a much more nuanced range of principles and approaches. This concluding chapter therefore summarises the key critiques of development theory and practice in fragile contexts found woven throughout the literature review and case studies, then offers tentative first steps towards more nuanced, context-specific recommendations for the roles of development actors, development approaches and modalities of interaction with structures and use of power in development, arranged according to thoughts around potential key drivers and characteristics of fragility, as illustrated by the case studies.

Development in Kyrgyzstan : Failed State or Failed Statebuilding?

This chapter examines the tensions present in approaches to development in Kyrgyzstan. It argues that development in this small post-Soviet republic has been approached primarily as formal statebuilding (Marquette & Beswick 2011), implying a belief that domestic political institutions and processes are the primary cause of fragility and that the adoption of democratic institutions and free market economic policies will result in development. The consequences of this inherently normative endeavour are explored in terms of the local political economy that has developed since independence and especially in the 2000s. Centrally, it is demonstrated how the competing interests and priorities of donors and local elite have undermined development efforts. On the basis of this analysis, it is suggested that rather than being framed as a failing or failed state, Kyrgyzstan is better understood as a case of failed statebuilding that cannot be remedied by the adoption of the current principles for development in fragile states situations, as adopted by the international community. Instead, the focus needs to be on facilitating the rebuilding of state-society relations both locally and internationally with a view to beginning to check the marketization of the state that has occurred.