Giraudy State Strength

7/27/2019 Giraudy State Strength

1/14

599

revista de ciencia pOLtica / vOLumen 32 / n 3 / 2012 / 599 611

* i hk ll of h Ncleo Milenio NS 100014 Project fo h vo o h of

s L a h 21 c: col chll, hl so chl mh,2012. i lo fl o a Fl, vk mllo, o oo w, wll of h of fo h hfl o. th l of h mll nl fo h s

of s do L a, poj ns100014, of h m of eoo to of

chl.

ConCeptualizing State Strength:

Moving Beyond StrongandWeak StateS*

Conceptualizando la fortaleza del Estado:Ms all de los estados dbiles o fuertes

AgustinA girAudy

Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Harvard University and American University

ABstrACt

the regh of ae ha log bee regare by he pealze lerare a ao fo o h l of ff oll oo hoh o oolo, h l of lw, q ovo of lgoo, a eoom growh. depe he mporae of ae regh, oly fewholarly work have yemaally explore he efo a he oveo of h o. th l k o () f h olo of h, () w o h ff of ff l of ofo hv ffo o l (.., o), () ovol ool o hl l ov o h ll hoo of o v wk .

K : s h, colo, so s v. Wk s, Hs.

RESUMEN

La literatura especializada ha considerado a la capacidad estatal como un factor importante paragarantizar la viabilidad de diferentes fenmenos polticos y econmicos como, por ejemplo, laconsolidacin democrtica, el estado de derecho, la adecuada provisin de bienes pblicos y elcrecimiento econmico. A pesar de la importancia de la capacidad estatal, solo algunos pocostrabajos acadmicos han explorado sistemticamente la definicin as como las dimensiones

constitutivas de este concepto. Este artculo busca (a) precisar la conceptualizacin de capacidadestatal, (b) echar luz sobre los efectos que tienen las reglas de agregacin a efectos de alcanzardiferenciacin entre casos empricos (e.g., pases) y (c) brindar herramientas conceptualespara superar la clsica dicotoma entre estados dbiles y estados fuertes.

Palabras clave: Capacidad estatal, conceptualizacin, estados fuertes vs. estados dbiles,estados hbridos.


2/14

agustina giraudy

600

th h of h lo o fo o ,o oh h, o oolo (L s, 1996), h l oflw (Odoll, 1993), q oo of l oo (ro, 2004),

oo owh (cowoh, 1998). d h o of h,ol fw holl wok h ll xlo o o.sll, ll o x o how h o hol o o ll l ffo o (.., o).th of l k h fl o of ofoo l of o fo o h of l-wol o , o hol ooo, l loh, l kowl (so, 1970; coll mho, 1993; mk, 2004; go,2006; K, 2009; g, 2012).

to fh ol h , h o h h , fo h o ,oh fo hooo , h w h oo wk. th ol o , wh h xo of h eo, whh ll o, l oh o olo. a l, h ll wk o of l h, l holl , ff wl fo h oh. th lol h, , ol ff h o hol l of o of h x h lo wol.

th ol of h l h-fol. F, k o f h olo of h. to o o, h w o fh x h h o holo of h o sof o H (2008) sof(2008). so, h l o w o h o of l ofo fo h ffo o l . i l, ko hhlh how h ho of f l of o h ofl h o h o of o wk. Fll, h l hl l o o h ll hoo

of o wk k h o of wk . to o o,h w o h h ol o h fo of wk h h lo o.

th l o follow. th f o x o l sof(2008) sof o H (2008) o o h o wo llol h. th o o h l lo ofwo o h l ffo, g go (2006) ool o, h fl l oh h ff o

. so h ol h oh o h ll lffo, h o-ll h oh h, low, h ol o hl h o o h o-wk hoo. thl ol h o of h hl oo h l fo k h o of wk .


3/14

cOnceptuaLizing state strengtH: mOving beyOnd strOng and WeaK states

601

1. ConCeptuAlizing stAte strength: the BAsiC And primArylevels

sof o H (2008) h o hol who wl wh h llo o whh ol fo of , h lo wh ol o, l ol h (2008:220).1 dwo x l w of ow holl wok o h , sof o H (2008) h h ff h o h o h oo of h. th f h o h (olk hof) o l hoho h o k o o.2 a oh o h (o lk hof) of h o l oloool fo ol o.3 Fll, h of h kl oh

of h l h ofolo /o olo (olk hof) of o l ol, x o, ll oo.4

Fo sof (2008) sof o H (2008) o ol ool h h o of h o o: olh, oo fo o- o, /ofol o. F 1 l h h olo.

F 1: a olo of h

ontological

Basic level

Secondary

level

State strength

Territorial

reach/penetration

Autonomy from

non-state actors

Bureaucratic

capacity

1 th ho h h h h o of h o

ll xlo wh mhl m h ll fl ow, h , h ol

of l o o loll l o (m, 1986: 113). i sof vo H o, h o of flow.

2 Wok h o l, o oh, tll (1990), skool (1979), H (2000), co (2002),

boo (2003), yh (2005), sof (2006), zl (2008).3 illv wok l, o oh, skool (1979), b (1981), ev (1995).4 so wok h o l, o oh, ev rh (1999), c (2001), m

(2007; 2010).


4/14

agustina giraudy

602

2. using ConCept struCtures to delimit the rAngeof empiriCAl CAses

t cc cO of h fo of o o l o o lh h lo of o . a h of h w w o kowwh f (.., o) fll o h o of wk wh oh o h o of o . go (2006) o h o (of l)w o o l o ll l h l o of o . co, h l, ll lo oh o of wo ool o : h ff o o h fl l o .5

th f w o oolol o jolff. aol, o fo o o o h o ,h h o o o .6 i h w, o x wh h l () l hoho h o l oo, l, ool; () x oll ow oool fo o-o, () l o ofol, oll l, ofl o o l ol fo h l of lw.

ulk h ff o , h fl l

l o ff wh o oo q (go, 2006:36). th ll fo h of o , coll mho (1993) o, fo h f h w o h of h fl o h h h o , o o ofl who h fw of h. th ool q , hohh o h ll fl , fl , h oo(coll mho, 1993: 847). i h w, h o o o h o (l) o o o h o . th, f o h ol ol h lk , h o

wol ll o .

r aa

a) The necessary and sufficient concept structure

go (2006) h h h of h o follow f l ofo hoh whh o o o o, whh hl

5 a o low, h v wh h of h wo l o .6 a v of h of wh h ff o h wo (o o)

o, of ll, o o lf v o o . Fo h k of

l, h v o l h fo wol q whh ol h/

o, oo fo o- o, xh (o o) h o o

of ae regh. Followg, he o preee seo i, h arle ame ha all hree are

o o of h. F wok, ohl, hol h .


5/14


603

l h ffo o l . th ff, go (2006) o, hll ol h lol and,wh o hoh llo how F 2.

th w of o-ll o l o o hw h o wk . Wh () l hohoh o h l o o, l, ool, () x oll owoool fo o- o, () l o ofol, olll, ofl o o l ol, x o (..,x) fo o, l l oo, l h l of lw, oho o of o . coo soh Ko, tw, g, oc fo h so oll qol o h h l o (aol, 2005; sl, 2008; 2010; H, 2000; ro, 2004).

if, o, o o ll h o (.., o of o), h o o . s h ff o h hooo w of o wh h ll o oh, hfl o l o of h o o (.., ol h) o of wk , l of whh h h wo o o(.., oo fo o- o ).

th ff o h hl h x lffo l o o h w o wk .nohl, h o h low o o ffwk . a how tl 1, h ll wk o (o) h, l holl , ff wl fo h oh. moo,h o wk o wh f o o of h fl o , wh oh . a l, wk , tl 1 how,o oh ff ff .7

7 th l o fl h ll vll o h ol of ol h.

F 2: a ff olo of h

Basic level

Secondary

level

ontological Conjunction of noncausal necessary conditions

State strength

Territorial

reach/penetration

Autonomy from

non-state actors

Bureaucratic

capacity


6/14

agustina giraudy

604

tl 1: clfo of h ff o

cLl

tolh

b

aoo foo- o

tof

a so

b o Wk

c o Wk

d o o Wk

e o o Wk

F o o Wk

g o o Wk

H o o o Wk

tk fo h of p, H, bol, whh ll h l l xl of wk h f h h wkl fo h fl o ff o o. Wh p wk lk ol h o h (a) o(yh, 2005), bol wk o low ll of

o h o (g mol, 2008). H, o, o wk o hoho h o, oo h o f l oo, fl o oool fo o- o (ro, 2004; b, 2012). i , whlxl hlfl o l ffo w o wk ,h ff o h l ffo whh o of wk , h of l oh (.., o)h ff wl o h oh.

b) The family resemblance concept structure

a o o, h fl l l o ffwh o oo q (go, 2006: 36). no l o o fo o o o ; h ll w whh o.8 Fo h o, o-ll o of o wh fl l o o h lol Or hoh o, how F 3. th h h of o llow fo h of h o o fo

h of oh (go, 2006: 39-44).

8 noe ha h ype of oep rre relaxe he ampo abo he eey of eah of he hree

o ol so i. a o fooo 6, f wok hol whh o of h

o o h oh.


7/14


605

th w of o-ll o lo l o oh w o wk . c h o o of hh o o wk . a o lk H, wh l h ol h l hlf o oh , wh oho h l o, o, o, lhol o l, ll xo o o hool (b,2012: 3), h ol wk. moo, lk of oo fo olo, who 2004 h f l lo,h o wk (b, 2012).

if o, (o ll) of h o-ll o o of h (), h hol o . a wh h l h o l l oo o o x olo, whh ohl h wh ol h o foloh ox, , o o h fl l o , of

o . s (2006), fo , how h rw ll o wk . H o h h hll oohof rw h hl l l h fo ll.th ool o o olo, s , l h rw o l ol of o ol h l l o of h o o l wll.

Lk h ff o , h fl l hl h x l ffo l o o

h w o wk . nohl, o wh h ff oo of wk , h fl l o h low o o ff o . moo, ho o o wh f o o of h fl o , wh oh fo o o o .a l, o , tl 2 how, o oh ff ff

F 3: a fl l olo of h

Basic level

Secondary

level

ontological

State strength

Territorial

reach/penetration

Autonomy from

non-state actors

Bureaucratic

capacity


8/14

agustina giraudy

606

. Fo h o, h fl l o lo ll fl ox l ffo.

tl 2: clfo of h fl l o

cLl

tolh

b

aoo foo- o

tof

H o o o Wk

a so

b o so

c o so

d o o so e o so

F o o so

g o o so

3. moving Beyond strong And weAK stAtes

eh of h wo ll o h o o o fl -off fo hol h lo o, l L a, wh fo h o h l o ol wk.9 Wh h o fl o lh ll ow h o h x o (.., o . wk ), h l hlfl fo f l l ff o wh o (oll) o o of h o . ph o ol,h o fl o o foo o h f o h o o wh h of h o.

a l o h h ffo wo wk , whl lo x l l ffoo h fll h o of h h h oh. Follow coll Lk (1997), h hol o fll of h oo o of h, .., wh h ho o . i, h hol oo lh ol of o h lk o o o oo/oo, o h ol of wk , h h o

o o o o . dh , coll Lk (1997)o, hl o o hooo olo of o wk , h hl o h h o x h of , , o ol,

9 Wh h xo of H, wh h h o o of h , u/

co r, wh ll o , o L a lk o of h.


9/14


607

F 4 how, h lo o o h ffo w l o.

F 4: dh of h10

BC: Bureaucratic capacity TR: Territorial reach

Aut: Autonomy from non-state actors Undened membership

Weak state

State strength

Strong state

Missing dimension:TR and BC

Weberianless-

Nonreaching State

Missing dimensions:Aut

Crony State

Missing dimensions:None

Strong State

Missing dimension:TR

Nonreaching

State

Missing dimensions:All 3

Weak State

Diminished subtypes

a F 4, f of h h h llf h f o o of [ h] h , h lhh h h of h h h h f oh of [ h] h . b h f , h lo ffo, h h f f o ff of ho h oo of [ h] (coll Lk, 1997: 437-438).

th lo xlo of h o wh h ll tl 3. Lk h lfo o h ff o, o l ol wh ll h o o . exl of wk , lk h xoo o h fl lo , x ol wh ll o . c ll of ff of h , , l wh o o o h o o llo . a F 4 tl 3, h ll h fo o oh, o ol ll lo lll ..,

10 a fo go (2006) ho of lol h . Fo h k of

lary a e o pae lmao, oly ome ombao of mg arbe were le h

h. dh ll F 4 h, o o xh h v of ll ol

oo of .


10/14

agustina giraudy

608

h of h o f of : o , o-h ,Wl-o-h .11

tl 3: clfo of h 12

cLl

mo

tolh

b

aoo foo- o

tof

a no so H all h o o o Wk g two: tr, bc o o no-he O: tr o no-h b O: a o co

d oo o x l l ffo, h jool wh of h lo. F, h coll Lk (1997), h fl fo h h h o o wk, h h of whh h hol f of o ( h h l F 4, whh of h, how), h h of wk o o oho (h fl ). so, h , mk (2006) o, h l of h fo of hhol h lh o wo w . How o o o fo o lf h l o? Fll, whl o o ol l l, h , coll Lk(1997) s (2006) o, l o o olfo of o whh l ol ol ofo. H, h, o wh h , h oo of wo ff o ,hol k ol.

4. ConCluding remArKs

th ol of h ho l h o off l fo hol who owh h olo of h lo o. Fho, hl h oh o o h o ff o ff, ohlll ll, o h o o of ho o wk . dw o sof (2008) sof o H (2008) h

11 th a very prelmary aemp o efy ae bype. Label h a Weberale-oreahg, o-h o o ll wkw, h l F 4 o ol xh h whol of ol . F wok hol o wh o floll o o .

12 a o fo, ol o oo of l h l. dh ll tl 3 h, o o xh h of ll ol o o of .


11/14


12/14

agustina giraudy

610

boo, ch. 2003. poll tooh of h af s. tol aho iolcho. c: c u p.

boo, Lw. 1996. gll h s: th rol of h s h colo p po.Journal of Latin American Studies 28: 279-297.

c, dl. 2001. The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovation inexecutive agencies, 1862-1928. po: po u p.

co, ml l. 2002. bloo d: W h no-s L a. upk, pa: pl s u p.

cowoh, Joh H. 1998. eoo ol jo h L a. icowoh J. al m. tlo (.). L a h wol oo 1800. c,m.: H u/d rokfll c fo L a s.

coll, d s Lk. 1997. do wh aj: col ioo co al. World Politics 49: 430-451.

coll, d J. mho. 1993. col h : a o o

l.American Political Science Review 87: 845-855.d Joh, Joh. 2010. th co, c coq of Fl s: a cl rw ofh L a fo rh wh sf rf o s-sh af. EuropeanJournal of Development Research 221: 10-30.

e p. 1995. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. po: po up.

e p J rh. b owh: o-ol l of h ff ofW o oo owh.American Sociological Review 64 (5 [O.]):748-765.

g, Joh. 2012. Social Science Methodology. A Critical Framework. c: c u p.go, g. 2006. Social Science Concepts. A Users Guide. po Oxfo: po u p.g mol 2008. s-so rlo bol: th sh of Wk. i c, Joh

L Whh (.). uol o: bol . ph, p.: uof ph p.

H, Jff. 2000. States and power in Africa. po: po u p.K, m. 2009. p: lf h f xlo. i Concepts and Method in

Social Science. The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori, . d coll Joh g. Loo: rol.L, J alf s. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South

America, and post-communist Europe. blo: Joh Hok u p.m, mhl. 1986. The Sources of Social Power 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D . 1760.

c: c u p.m, s. 2007. rol doo: a o pow v ex of

pow. i Regimes and Democracy in Latin America: Theory and Methods, . g. mk. Oxfo:Oxfo u p.

m, s. 2010. a o pow ex of pow rol doQl L a. Studies in Comparative International Development 45: 334-357.

Odoll, gllo. 1993. O h s, doo so col col pol:a L a vw wh gl so poo co. World Development 21:1355-1369.

ro, Wll. 1995. Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone. c, u.K.: c u p.ro, Wll. 2003. s Lo: Wf po-s so. i r. i. ro (.). State Failure

and State Weakness in a Time of Terror, 71-100. c, ma, Who, dc: th Wol p

Foo/book io.ro, ro i. 2003. State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. c, m.: Who,d.c.: Wol p Foo ; book io p.

ro, ro i. 2004. Wh s Fl: c coq. po, n.J.: po up.

so, go. 1970. co mfoo co pol. The American Political ScienceReview 64 (4):1033-1053.


13/14


14/14

Giraudy State Strength

Documents

Transcript of Giraudy State Strength