Building Legitimate States After Civil Wars

Lake, David A.

doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226351261.003.0002

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Definitions of legitimacy vary. For our purposes we adopt a minimalist stance, considering legitimacy to be an attribute of political authority that captures residents' acceptance that state institutions have "the right to issue certain commands, and that they, in turn, have an obligation or duty to comply" (Lake, 2010). This definition, which appears in the context of the state-building literature, is especially appropriate for Afghanistan, where state institutions are weak, and multiple actors compete for political authority (Lyall, Blair and Imai, 2013).…”

Section: Theoretical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan

Berman

Callen

Gibson

et al. 2019

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our conclusions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our funders. Mistakes remain with the authors. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan

Berman

Callen

Gibson

et al. 2019

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The problem, however, is that we do not have good theories of how to build legitimacy when it has evaporated in failed states. Drawing on the formal‐legal approach, the implicit assumption in much of the statebuilding literature is that convening some type of constitutional convention and passing a new basic law will automatically, or at least without great difficulty, legitimate a new government (Lake 2010a, 2010b). Yet a formal‐legal approach suffers from the same problem as other explanations of legitimacy, as law rests on established authority that is itself legitimate.…”

Section: Building State Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, and perhaps even more important, the trustee can credibly commit to the creation of a specific political order and its attendant governance structures as negotiated by the parties themselves. By committing to the preservation of a specific political order, the trustee can fix expectations around which social order congeals, solving the problem of potential cycling between alternatives (Lake 2010a). The trustee also coordinates foreign aid to rebuild the country's economic infrastructure and political institutions.…”

Section: The State Of the Art On The Art Of Statebuildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why International Trusteeship Fails: The Politics of External Authority in Areas of Limited Statehood

Lake

Fariss

2014

Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International trusteeship is widely touted as a solution to the problem of failed states, an extreme form of limited statehood. Current theories of legitimacy and statebuilding suggest that trusteeships should produce more capable states. These theories, however, fail to take into account the self‐interest and political strategies available to trustees and politicians within new states. We pose a more political model of statebuilding by the international community, the trustee, and national politicians that predicts that trusteeship will fail to produce states with greater capacity. We test for the effects of trusteeship on state capacity, measured by service provision, by creating a matched sample of countries. We find that there is no evidence that states under trusteeship develop greater capacity leading to better provision of public goods than comparable states not under trusteeship. Would‐be statebuilders must be more aware of the political incentives of all parties involved in the process.

show abstract

“…In the context of “guerrilla governments” in Latin America, Wickham‐Crowley (:478) has argued that armed groups establish authority by fulfilling the classic functions associated with government, thus forming a social contract with the population. Similarly, providing people with social order—protection from internal and external dangers—is particularly important to establishing a sense of legitimate authority in a postwar society (Lake ). In the context of de facto states, not only do the authorities have to convince the population that they can do more than fight the parent state; they have to also convince the population that they can provide for their security just as well, or even better, than the parent state.…”

Section: Sources Of Internal Legitimacy: De Facto States As Convincinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… There is a mutually reinforcing relationship here, in the sense that legitimacy, in turn, aids state‐building efforts (Lake ). For example, it is easier for a state to collect taxes (to fund public goods) if it is seen as legitimate. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Convincing State-Builders? Disaggregating Internal Legitimacy in Abkhazia

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

De facto states, functional on the ground but unrecognized by most states, have long been black boxes for systematic empirical research. This study investigates de facto states’ internal legitimacy—people's confidence in the entity itself, the regime, and institutions. While internal legitimacy is important for any state, it is particularly important for de facto states, whose lack of external legitimacy has made internal legitimacy integral to their quest for recognition. We propose that the internal legitimacy of de facto states depends on how convincing they are to their “citizens” as state‐builders. Using original data from a 2010 survey in Abkhazia, we examine this argument based on respondent perceptions of security, welfare, and democracy. Our findings suggest that internal legitimacy is shaped by the key Weberian state‐building function of monopoly of the legitimate use of force, as well as these entities’ ability to fulfill other aspects of the social contract.

show abstract

Building Legitimate States After Civil Wars

Cited by 27 publications

References 27 publications

Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan

Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan

Why International Trusteeship Fails: The Politics of External Authority in Areas of Limited Statehood

Convincing State-Builders? Disaggregating Internal Legitimacy in Abkhazia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About