A “strong” quality is necessary for a healthy, competent, and prosperous state. For a state to be strong, it must perform its delineated functions well and a substantial range of responsibilities, which equates to an ideology of a deliberately extensive scope. Political experts consistently separate the concepts of scope and strength, though there is a strong correlation between the effectiveness of a state and its scope. The international political expert, Francis Fukuyama, supports this generalization stating: “The problem for many countries was that in the process of reducing state scope they…decreased state strength...”
There are several reasons an activist scope is effective. The economic peril of an inadequate scope limits regulation of the economy. Strong leadership with an activist scope also curtails possible catastrophic ethnic violence, allows a state to be able to react to crises, and maintain security. Many nations have demonstrated the consequences of weak states that have reduced scope, notably Greece, Yugoslavia, South Korea, Pakistan and Kenya, but the aversion of a wholesale economic catastrophe in the United Sates is an example of the benefit of a strong state. While the benefits of a strong state do not indicate authoritarianism is virtuous, sometimes less democratic states are more effective.
A state possesses near total “monopoly of force” to establish any legitimacy and even be characterized as a state. While a “monopoly of force” has a connotation that suggests oppression, it merely means it is the sole entity that establishes physical control over a country, an obvious necessity for a functioning state. Weak states cannot either maintain actual control of the state or its laws, which results in anarchy or an inability to function. Grossly weak states usually exemplify this because of their inability to have a substantial scope. Due to an insufficient scope, Pakistan has not been able to cultivate nationalism, which undermines its “monopoly of force” in Waziristan and similarly remote areas near the Afghan border. Somalia possess nearly no “monopoly of force,” which results in terrorist groups operating with impunity, and even being dominant to the state, like Al-Shabaab in Somalia. “Weak or failed states are close to the root of many of the world's most serious problems, from poverty and AIDS to drug trafficking and terrorism.” says Francis Fukuyama.
[...] Patrick O'Neil, Essentials of Comparative Politics, 3rd edition Norton, 2009) p26 Patrick O'Neil, Essentials of Comparative Politics, 3rd edition Norton, 2009) p Le Sage, Andre. "Somalia's Endless Transition: Breaking the Deadlock." Strategic Fourum. Institute for National Strategic Studies, June 2010. Web Sept p.4 http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docUploaded/SF%20257.pdf Francis Fukuyama, Imperative of State-Building,” Journal of Democracy, vol no (2004), p http://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fweb apps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_143835_1%26ur l%3d Francis Fukuyama, Imperative of State-Building,” Journal of Democracy, vol no (2004), p http://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fweb apps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_143835_1%26ur l%3d Francis Fukuyama, Imperative of State-Building,” Journal of Democracy, vol no (2004), p http://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fweb apps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_143835_1%26ur l%3d Sortiropoulo, Angliki. [...]
[...] If the state had not dramatically increase its scope allowing regulation and injections, the economy would be in similar situation.[11] Greece's legal lack of “monopoly of force” resulted in a culture of tax evasion, which has a negative effect on its reputation.[12] Finally, because “questions of state capacity were largely absent from policy discussion, last major inadequacy of the Washington Consensus is its ineffectiveness in prodding African states to reduce scope resulted in decreased productivity[13]. Instead, corruption allowed governments in African countries to drastically reduce “basic investments in roads, primary schooling, agriculture, and public health plummeted during the last decades of the century.”[14] Through these examples, it is clear how a weak state results in negative qualities that severely detract from the efficiency and vitality of the state. [...]
[...] The folly of the Washington Consensus demonstrates the problems of an ideology of a minimalist scope. There are many examples, particularly Germany and Sweden that exhibit an economically contrary model that are demonstrating extreme economic success. Although weak states they may perform their duties well, their deficient scope becomes problematic, especially in the context of the national economy. South Korea, a stable state with high capacity falsely demonstrated the virtue of a weak economically libertarian state with its extreme economic growth.[10] While it appeared that the weakness of the state resulted in a success, which it did immediately, it lacked vital government restrictions to controlled catastrophic capital withdrawal (similar to a on the banks” ) in the mid 1990's and the result was a crippling recession. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
