State-Building and theOperation of the Market - Essay Example

Since then, international state-building has become acceptable because the condition had called for it. Today international state-building has seemed to change the understanding on the operations of the market; yet a deeper analysis on its arguments essentially reveals how capitalism manoeuvres to get over with its present crisis. In short, international state-building is a framework that further strengthens the relationship of the state and capital to ensure the pre-eminence of free-market economy in which the US remains unchallenged.

International State-building State-building, a concept in state theory first used at the end of Cold-War, pertains to deliberate interventions by national or international forces meant to capacitate and strengthen weak/fragile states and state institutions thereby making them functional (Jones & Chandran 2008, cited in Menocal 2009, p. 2; Caplan 2004, p. 53; Lotz 2010, p. 219). Current world events – e.g. . 16). In his book, International state-building: The rise of post-liberal governance, Chandler (2010) noted, how the world today has grown more acceptable of international state-building not only as a reactive response to reconstruct war-torn or conflict-ridden states but more as a preventive mechanism to save states from possible economic and political collapse (p. 1). What made this so, Woodward (2011) traced back to the end of Cold-War and the collapse of the USSR, which had resulted to violent break-up of socialist states, beginning with Yugoslavia in 1991.

These chaotic disintegration of the USSR simultaneous with the humanitarian crises in Sudan and Somalia had reversed the view toward the state of major world powers and their international machineries for security (UN, NATO, EU) and finance (IMF-WB) – The strong and totalitarian states are no longer viewed as the primary threat to international peace and prosperity; today the considered problem states are the weak/fragile ones, because as they fail to secure the needs of their people; they cause so much human suffering and chaos, resultantly preventing the smooth operations of the market, thus threatening international peace and prosperity.

Within this premise, international state-building – through which international aids were diverted to conflict transformation by building-up government capacities and institutions – was then made acceptable and until lately was seen necessary. (p. 316) This changed perception of the state, Chandler (2009) explained, had redefined sovereignty as no longer pertaining to a nation’s political independence, but to state capacity. Thus sovereignty is perceived no longer as a ban but