Strong and Weak States - Essay Example

?Strong and weak s - How would you distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' s? What reasons might account for these differences Introduction The position of states, as independent units, in the international community is usually related to a series of different qualities and potentials. The above characteristics of states have been used in order to explain the existence of two different types of states: strong and weak. In general, it would be preferable for a state to be strong being more capable to protect the national interests (Krasner 1978); however, in practice, it has been impossible for all countries worldwide to develop competencies and policies that characterize the strong states. Current paper focuses on the presentation and the explanation of the differences between strong and weak states – as these differences are highlighted in the relevant literature. Emphasis is given on both the characteristics of strong and weak states and the reasons for the existing differences between the above types of states. The understanding of the criteria and the reasons for the categorization of states to strong and weak could help to explain the format of relationships among states in the context of international community. More specifically, strong states are most likely to show their power in influencing key international policies by intervening in the political, social and economic decisions of the weak states (Nelson et al. 2002). Moreover, the presentation of the causes for the differences between strong and weak states would help to identify the strategies that would help inequality in the global politics to be effectively controlled. 2. Strong and weak states – characteristics and differences In the context of the international community, two different major types of states can be identified: a) the states which are strongly centralized and where the social needs are effectively addressed using appropriate economic (for instance, the industrialization) and political schemes; these states can be characterized as strong (Migdal 2001), b) on the other hand, there are those states where the government is not able to monitor the social and the economic changes developed across the national territory; these are the weak states where changes in society and economy are inevitable under the pressure of ‘uncontrollable forces coming from large powers and the world economy’ (Migdal 2001, p.58). In practice, a series of different criteria can be used in order to decide whether a particular state should be characterized as a strong or weak. For instance, in the study of Kopstein et al (2005) it is noted that the autonomy of a state in developing its own decisions on issues that are key for its existence and development should be considered as the key criterion for characterizing the specific state as strong. In other words, strong states are characterized by the ability of their leaders to make clear their preferences on the state’s priorities and initiatives – both in the short and the long term (Kopstein et al 2005). Moreover, capacity should be regarded as another key criterion for characterizing a state as strong; capacity in this case, as the term is used in the study of Kopstein et al (2005), is related to the existence of adequate resources for the development of the various plans of the state. Reference is made not just to financial resources, i.e. the funds available for the realization of the governmental plans, but also to the social resources, i.e. the people who are willing and capable of supporting the relevant initiatives (Kopstein et al. 2005). As for the weak states, it can be concluded – referring to the issues highlighted in the study of Kopstein et al. (2005) – that these states are expected to have limited autonomy and capacity, as these two terms were explained above. However, at this point, the following issue should be highlighted: the level of autonomy and capacity of a state cannot be always clearly identified. Even if many indications exist that show a high autonomy or capacity of a state, it is possible that, in practice, these indications are of low importance especially because there are other factors that negatively influence the potentials of the state to exercise its relevant powers. For instance, in the case of USA, assumptions would be made that the above country is characterized by high autonomy and capacity; however, a more close look at the country’s political and economic decisions would reveal that the actual potentials of the country in regard to its autonomy and capacity are limited at such point that the specific country would be characterized rather as a weak than a strong country – an issue also highlighted in the study of Mastanduno (1988), below. One of the key criteria differentiating strong from weak states is the power of the government to develop measures in order to ensure security; the term ‘security’ as mentioned above has two different aspects when it refers to a particular state: it can be the security from the internal threats or the security against the external threats (Buzan et al. 1998). It is explained in the study of Buzan et al. (1998) that in weak states internal security is more likely to be under continuous threat; on the other hand, external threats can exist in both strong and weak countries. It is in the above context that weak states are characterized by social conflicts and turbulences – mostly because ‘ideologies are challenged and political violence is extensive’ (Buzan et al. 1998, p.146). On the contrary, in strong states, governments are likely to be legitimate acting for the promotion of the public interest and not for their survival (Buzan et al 1998). From a similar point of view, Migdal (1988) explained that the criteria for the characterization of a state as a strong or weak are likely to be related to specific political and social activities; in this context, strong states are based on their ‘capabilities involving state penetration of society and extraction of resources’ (Migdal 1988, 8); on the contrary, in weak states leaders are not capable of promoting ‘transformations in social relationships’ (Migdal 1988, 8). In accordance with the above view, strong states are differentiated from weak states especially in regard to the policies regulating the social relationships across each country; in strong states, leaders are capable of supporting policies that regulate effectively social relationships while in weak states there is no such perspective. Therefore, the social structure and development are of crucial importance for the characterization of a country as strong or weak. This view is partially doubted by other theorists, who consider the terms ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ – when referring to a state – as related rather to the performance of the national economy rather than the structure and the development of the social relationships. On the other hand, Mastanduno (1988) notes that the criteria for the characterization of a state as strong or weak are not standardized; often, it is possible that a state which is considered as a global power, to respond to the characteristics of a weak state. Such example is, according to Mastanduno (1988), the case of USA, a country that meets the criteria of a weak state rather than that of a strong state. Mastanduno (1988) explains that the categorization of USA among the weak states can be understood by referring to the above country’s structure and rules of governance (meaning mostly the activities developed in the context of the public sector); indeed, USA is characterized by ‘extended decentralization and bureaucracy, a fact that has led to high fragmentation in most social and economic activities’ (Mastanduno. 1988, p.11). According to Mastanduno (1988) the weaknesses of USA as a state are made clearer when being compared to other states, which do not face such problems – for instance, France which is considered to be a strong state compared to USA (Mastanduno 1988). Regarding the position of USA in the international community, Rothstein et al. (2002) note that the characterization of the above country as a purely weak state would not be appropriate; more specifically, it is explained that even if USA can be considered as a weak state if taking into consideration the structure and the performance of its public sector, its private sector is highly supported – a fact that indicates efforts for controlling the country’s administrative weaknesses (Rothstein et al. 2002). In accordance with the above view, it is possible for a state to have characteristics of both a strong and a weak state – the trend for increase of the elements of each side could be used in the long term in order to evaluate the status of the state as strong or as weak. 3. Reasons for the differences between strong and weak states The existence of strong and weak states worldwide can be explained using a series of different justifications. In accordance with Fagan et al. (2009) in weak states governors can act highly independently in regard to the management of the states’ wealth. In other words, the desire for controlling a country’s wealth (referring to economic resources of various forms, including land, valuable metals and energy sources) can lead the governors of a country to develop a system of governance which will allow them increased independency in the management of their country’s wealth (Fagan et al. 2009). The above phenomenon is quite common in countries with important deposits of valuable materials, oil or natural gas – such as ‘Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Zaire’ (Fagan et al 2009, p.280). In the above cases, the increase of social conflicts within a state is a deliberate action of certain political groups, which aim to protect their political powers against the public’s reactions and opposition. In countries where such political and economic interests exist there can be no stabilization of the social relationships, i.e. these states would not easily become strong since such transformation would lead to the increase of the power of public to control the legitimacy of political decisions. The deliberate support of weaknesses of states in countries of the Third World has been negatively criticized in the literature; in accordance with the relevant studies, the existence of weak states in regions where strong economic and political interests exist is a common phenomenon. In the specific regions, the existence of weak states serves the interests of specific political powers. The above problem is highlighted in the study of Mentan (2004) where reference is made to the countries of Africa; it is explained that ‘a strong central state might have been necessary in Africa not just for historical and cultural reasons but for very practical ones’ (Mentan 2004, p.336). It is also made clear that the transformation of these countries to strong one would result to the increase of democracy but also to the improvement of the conditions of life (Mentan et al 2004). Of course, such change would be difficult taking into consideration the strong corporate and political interests exist in the above countries (Cerny 1990). On the other hand, it is possible for a strong state to become a weak one in case of radical social changes – under the terms that the country’s political and social framework is not ready to face effectively these changes. The case of Fiji, a former strong state that became weak because of ‘its failure to provide a secure social, political and economic environment’ (Rotberg 2003, p.18). In accordance with Rotberg (2003) the above country’s social, economic and political problems are mostly related to ‘the ethnic rivalries’ (Rotberg 2003, p.18) developed across the country. In the above case, the transformation of the state from strong to weak has resulted because of the lack of strong political control on the country’s administrative mechanisms involving in various social and economic activities (Rotberg 2003). Using the above view it can be assumed that the differences between strong and weak states are related to the rules regulating the social relationships and the economic activities in each state. Different explanations would be given in cases of states with dual contradicting social and political characteristics; indeed, in accordance with Tellis et al. (2000) it is possible for certain states to be either ‘strong society-weak state or strong state-weak society’ (Tellis et al 2000, p.91). In the countries of the first category, the production of goods aims to cover primarily the needs of the local society; on the other hand, in strong state-weak society, emphasis is given not on the needs of society but on the increase of the country’s military power (Tellis et al 2000). It is made clear that the countries of the first category are more closely to the ‘strong-society’ category while the countries of the second category should be rather characterized as weak. 4. Conclusion One of the most important factors influencing the status of a state as strong or weak seems to be the willingness of its governors to promote the interests of the public or their own interests. In any case, it seems that in countries with educational system of low quality, the promotion of specific political interests – and not of the public interest – is easier, if compared to the countries where the living standards of the population are satisfactory and where the education provided to the locals is strongly supported by the state. Through the literature examined in the context of this study it has been proved that the differentiation of states between strong and weak is based on specific criteria – mostly to the autonomy, the capacity and the network of social relationships of each state. Of course, it is possible that additional criteria of such type exist – for instance the characterization of a country as strong because of its culture and traditions, as in the case of China where ‘the 5,000 years old culture has led to the development of a strong state’ (Clesse 2004, p.187). In general, the identification of the criteria on which the political decisions are based in states worldwide can help to understand whether these states are strong or weak and to estimate whether possibilities exist for their transformation in a different type of state – i.e. from strong to weak and vice versa. References Buzan, B., Waever, O., de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers Cerny, P. (1990) The changing architecture of politics: structure, agency, and the future of the State. SAGE Clesse, A. (2004) The vitality of China and the Chinese. Rozenberg Publishers Fagan, H., Munck, R. (2009) Globalization and Security: Social and cultural aspects. ABC-CLIO Kopstein, J., Lichbach, M. (2005) Comparative politics: interests, identities, and institutions in a changing global order. Cambridge University Press Krasner, S. (1978) Defending the national interest: raw materials investments and U.S. foreign policy. Princeton University Press Mastanduno, M. (1988) The State and American foreign economic policy. Cornell University Press Mentan, T. (2004) Dilemmas of weak states: Africa and transnational terrorism in the twenty-first century. Ashgate Publishing Migdal, J. (2001) State in society: studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another. Cambridge University Press Migdal, J. (1988) Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press Nelson, D., Neack, L. (2002) Global society in transition: an international politics reader. Kluwer Law International Rotberg, R. (2003) State failure and state weakness in a time of terror. Brookings Institution Press Rothstein, B., Steinmo, S. (2002) Restructuring the welfare state: political institutions and policy change. Palgrave Macmillan Tellis, A., Center, A. (2000) Measuring national power in the post-industrial age. Rand Corporation Read More