This paper proposes a theoretically grounded and methodologically rigorous conceptualisation of state collapse. It seeks to overcome several key deficits of research into fragile, failed and collapsed states, which is often criticised as normatively problematic and methodologically deficient. We argue that this is a worthwhile topic to study but that scholarly inquiry needs to become more systematic and focus on extreme cases of state collapse. Following a Weberian institutionalist tradition, we disaggregate statehood into three dimensions of state capacity: making and enforcing binding rules, monopolising the means of violence and collecting taxes. We then propose a set of indicators as well as a mode of aggregation based on necessary and sufficient conditions. Our framework identifies 17 cases of state collapse in the postcolonial era. Keywords: state collapse; concept formation; fragile states Introduction The state is back. After being out of fashion for decades, the institution of the state is now perceived as a source of peace and well-being. Consequently 'state fragility' and 'state collapse' are thought to be a challenge to security and development in the global South. However, more work needs to be done to improve the analytical viability of these buzzwords. This paper takes two recent critiques as points of departure. The first is that looking at state fragility in the broadest sense makes the concept too difficult to operationalise and lumps together very different phenomena underneath the same umbrella. Authors like Call and Ulfelder have therefore advocated a focus on more extreme and clear-cut cases, tightening the scope of inquiry from fragile states to collapsed states.1 A second critique holds that current approaches are insufficiently theorised.
Why do some fragile states collapse while others do not? This article presents results from a comparative analysis of the causes of state collapse. Using a dataset of 15 cases of state collapse between 1960 and 2007, we conduct both synchronic and diachronic comparisons with two different control groups of fragile states using crisp-set QCA. The results support our hypothesis that state collapse has multiple causes. The militarization of political groups, when combined with other conditions, plays a major part in the process. Other causal factors are political transition, extreme poverty, declining government resources or external aid, factionalist politics, repression and pre-colonial polities. This challenges structuralist explanations focusing on regime types and the resource curse, among other things, and opens up avenues for further research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.