ABSTRACT
Though the concept of state fragility is relatively new, it has quickly established itself as an indispensable part of the international lexicon (Ghani and Lockhart 2008; Kaplan 2008). However, the enthusiasm with which it has been embraced by policymakers has not been matched by a commensurate commitment to theoretical coherence; the use of the term fragility is often marked by a lack of rigor and specificity. Indeed, one may go so far as to argue that the appeal of the different terms used arises partially from their inherent ambiguity, allowing policy advocates and policymakers alike to adapt them to their own agendas. The purpose of this volume therefore is to address the resulting lack of coherence in both research and policy related to state fragility and failure. It is premised on the need for a sound empirical basis from which to assess such concepts and to identify qualitatively and quantitatively the risks associated with policy responses. This volume is therefore dedicated not just to the introduction of academic rigor to the subject, but also to the formulation and communication of the results of that analysis in a way that enables coordinated and effective international policy. Our goal here is to bring conceptual and empirical clarity to the subject by developing and testing an alternative theoretical framework derived from leading research and insights in the field of fragility and failure. Our framework employs national-level statistical indicators, combined with structured temporal analysis of events and policy initiatives in country. Further, our approach is tested empirically using large-N statistical analyses of fragility, and compared with other indices of state fragility and failure. We subsequently use these empirical findings to illustrate the utility of our analytical framework, test hypotheses on assumed linkages and to identify policy options.
