ABSTRACT
In this chapter we examine policy-related research programmes and initiatives on fragile states. Due consideration is given to not just the development side of the equation but to conflict and instability perspectives as well. One of the fundamental debates that has emerged in policy discourse in the last several years is the divergence of opinion on how and where to engage fragile states and the implications of doing so. Much of the discourse has been framed in terms of aid effectiveness and integrated approaches, but some of it also focuses on improving analysis and justifying engagement in fragile states on the basis of national self-interest. In the first part of the chapter we assess the rationale for pursuing streams of research that contribute to these debates. We examine their strengths and weaknesses, and provide reference tables that will facilitate a comparative analysis. We conclude with recommendations on how policy can move forward by providing suggestions on how to strengthen policy-relevant research on state fragility. This chapter provides a bridge between the theoretical and conceptual first chapter and subsequent chapters in which we present and evaluate our policyrelevant framework of analysis. Many donor countries, along with regional organizations and the United Nations, have developed an in-house capacity for conducting their own risk assessments and are developing independent procedures for conducting early warning, monitoring, and response to fragile states (Ghani and Lockhart 2008; Kaplan 2008). Many of these capabilities are identified in Table 2.1. The inherent problem is a lack of policy coordination that can arise as a consequence of using distinct analytical frameworks that rely on different assumptions about the causes of fragility as well as its consequences. Different analytical frameworks provide diverse perspectives, produce disparate policy prescriptions, and most importantly generate different lists of states at risk of fragility.1 To understand how the donor community arrived at this situation, it is useful to examine the three dominant policy streams that provide the frameworks for government agencies and international organizations illustrated in Table 2.1. These streams help us understand key assumptions and the rationale for investing in policy-relevant research. The research streams identified in greater detail in Table 2.1, are, broadly speaking, development-oriented, conflict-oriented, and
stability-oriented. Together, these three perspectives inform most discussions of state fragility today.2 As policymakers continue to grapple with the distinct, though interconnected, policy discussions related to these perspectives, some have begun to focus on the fact that many of the drivers of fragility are in fact geographically confined to the same limited number of states globally (Collier 2007). On the one hand, the concept of fragility represents an effort to generate a conceptual framework sufficiently general to capture these disparate influences (Kaplan 2008). On the other hand, it must be recognized that the concept, as it is generally used, focuses on a finite number of states in specific regions of the world which are considered to have reached an end state of collapse, failure, or interminable conflict.3
