A tool to evaluate state capacity in post‐communist countries, 1989–2006

Abstract

In an attempt to bring together the research on state capacity, this article proposes a five‐item index to operationalise and measure the concept of state capacity. The index was constructed for 26 post‐communist countries on a yearly basis from their first year of independence from communist rule to 2006. Different states unavoidably display dissimilar levels of aptitude in the different domains of state capacity, but the aggregated index of state capacity presented is high in both validity and reliability. With the help of this index, the starting conditions as well as the evolution of state capacity within the countries included in this study are explored, with three conclusions. First, post‐communist countries emerged displaying very contrasting levels of state capacity. Second, the level of state capacity has remained relatively stable within most countries between 1989–1991 and 2006, which ties in the last conclusion that the initial level of state capacity is the strongest determinant of subsequent levels of state capacity. All three conclusions carry important implications for research using state capacity either as an independent or as a dependent variable.

Does Democratization Foster State Consolidation? Democratic Rule, Political Order, and Administrative Capacity

“…We thus begin from the idea of state capacity as “infrastructural power” articulated by Michael Mann within the Weberian tradition, that is, “the institutional capacity of a central state, despotic or not, to penetrate its territories and logistically implement decisions” (Mann , 59). As Fortin (, 656) observes, “at the core” of Mann's notion of infrastructural power is “the question of the state's authority over territory,” as well as “whether governments can implement policies, including the provision of public goods.” To account for both aspects, we extrapolate two distinct indicators from the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) and notably from its “stateness” criterion or the degree to which “there is clarity about the nation's existence as a state with adequately established and differentiated power structures” (cf. BTI Manual , 16).…”

“…; Keefer and Khemani ; Lake and Baum ; Mulligan, Gil, and Sala‐i‐Martin ). The second literature of concern consists of emerging attempts at empirically measuring the notions of state, stateness, or state capacity (Dahlström, Lapuente, and Teorell ; Evans and Rauch ; Fortin ; Hendrix ; Mata and Ziaja ).…”

Is There a Necessary Condition for Democracy? The Role of State Capacity in Postcommunist Countries

“…Here, infrastructural power is defined as "the institutional capacity o f a central state, despotic or not, to penetrate its territories and logistically implement decisions" (Mann, 1993, p. 59). This understanding of state capacity is operationalized by examining the quality o f provision of a class o f collective goods even a minimally redistributive state should theo retically provide, as proposed by recent work (Fortin, 2010). Rather than focusing on the measurement o f absolute resources, this approach assumes that it is insufficient that a state should possess important human and natural resources for the production o f wealth: It must also be able to effectively make use o f those resources.…”

“…For an in-depth discussion o f index construction, particularly the issues o f valid ity and reliability, see Fortin (2010).…”

The Impact of Institutional Volatility on Financial Volatility in Transition Economies: A GARCH Family Approach

“…For the purposes of this paper, we utilize two separate indicators to test the effects of the level of property rights on volatility: the first, objective indicator is 'contract intensive money' (CIM), a measure used by inter alia Clague et al (1996Clague et al ( , 1999, Dollar and Kraay (2003), Knack, Kugler and Manning (2003), Fortin (2010), Compton and Giedeman (2011) and Hartwell (2013), and which measures the proportion of money held outside the formal banking sector:…”