Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Redeeming Statebuilding’s Misconceptions: Power, Politics and Social Efficacy and Capital in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Statebuilding is believed to be a central development objective. Statebuilding’s track record, however, has been disappointing, as it has typically focused on institution building and capacity development. Even as questions of politics, power, and state legitimation are elevated in importance, the operational guidance of most recent iterations of the statebuilding approach still revert back to institution and capacity building strategies. This is due to a misconception of the nature and structure of the fragile post-colonial state. The relevance and role of the ‘second state’ – polities legally authorized to distribute public goods and services based upon traditional authorities – are too often overlooked. This is despite the fact that the ‘second state’ provides the formal state with much of its legitimacy; delivers the majority of justice and security, and represents the interests of the preponderance of the population. It is also important to distinguish between the ‘second state’ and various non-state actors, groups that do not belong to either the formal or ‘second state,’ but, nevertheless, provide justice and security. Bringing the ‘second state’ and nonstate actors into the statebuilding agenda will redeem it and strengthen individual/group social efficacy and capital, transforming questions of state legitimacy into those of legitimate selfgovernance, without losing the centrality of power in statebuilding’s understanding of politics.

10.1163/187541110X504346
/content/journals/10.1163/187541110x504346
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187541110x504346
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Comparative Politics 00104159 1984;Vol 16:223 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/421608
2. Development Policy Review 09506764 2006;Vol 24:143
3. Comparative Studies in Society and History 00104175 1975;91
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/187541110x504346
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187541110x504346
2010-03-25
2016-12-03

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Journal of International Peacekeeping — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation