|
In political science, state-building as a term used in state theory describes the construction of a functioning state. This concept, first used in connection with the creation of states in Western Europe, focused on the power enforcement of state in society (Tilly 1975). Tilly (1975: 70f.) described the advantages of state building in Europe as follows:
==Definition== There are two main theoretical approaches to definitions of state-building. First, state-building is seen by some theorists as an activity undertaken by external actors (foreign countries) attempting to build, or re-build, the institutions of a weaker, post-conflict or failing state. This `exogenous' or International Relations school views state-building as the activity of one country in relation to another, usually following some form of intervention (such as a UN peacekeeping operation). The second, developmental, theory followed a set of principles developed by the OECD in 2007 on support to conflict affected states which identified `statebuilding' as an area for development assistance. The result saw work commissioned by donor countries on definitions, knowledge and practice in state-building,this work has tended to draw heavily on political science. It has produced definitions that view state-building as an indigenous, national process driven by state-society relations. This view believes that countries cannot do state-building outside their own borders, they can only influence, support or hinder such processes. Illustrations of this approach include a think-piece commissioned for OECD () and a research study produced by the Overseas Development Institute.〔Verena Fritz and Alina Rocha Menocal, '' (State-Building from a Political Economy Perspective: An Analytical and Conceptual Paper on Processes, Embedded Tensions and Lessons for International Engagement )'', 2007; Overseas Development Institute〕 The developmental view was expressed in a number of papers commissioned by development agencies (). These papers tend to argue that state-building is primarily a `political' process rather than just a question of technical capacity enhancements and sees state-building as involving a threefold dynamic of: political (usually elite) deals, the prioritization of core government functions and the willingness to respond to public expectations.〔http://tna.europarchive.org/20081212094836/http://dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/State-in-Development-Wkg-Paper.pdf〕 A further important influence on thinking on states affected by conflict was the World Bank's 2011 World Development Report, which avoided the language of state-building while addressing some related themes. Across the two streams of theory and writing there is a broader consensus that lessons on how to support state-building processes have not yet been fully learnt. Some believe that supporting state-building requires the fostering of legitimate and sustainable state institutions, but many accept that strategies to achieve this have not yet been fully developed. Little of the post-conflict support to state-building undertaken so far has been entirely successful. From an exogenous perspective it can be argued that sustained focus on supporting state-building has tended to happen in states frequently characterized by brutalized civilian populations, destroyed economies, institutions, infrastructure, and environments, widely accessible small arms, large numbers of disgruntled soldiers to be demobilized and reintegrated, and ethnically or religiously divided peoples. These obstacles are compounded by the fundamental difficulty of grafting democratic and human rights values onto countries with different political, cultural, and religious heritages. Pluralizing societies is theoretical in its viability for immediate political and economic stability and expediency; ideological overtones can be met with opposition within host nations and issues of self-determination and external state trusteeship and stewarding of nascent institutional reform, or its creation, could negatively impact a tenuous post conflict national self- identity. Both schools of thinking have generated critiques and studies seeking to test the propositions made. A more developmental approach with an emphasis on composite state-building processes, would have implications for donor programmes, diplomacy and peace-keeping. Some research has tried to test some of the ideas involved〔(OECD, Do No Harm in State-building 2009)〕 and at least one donor agency issued a guidance note for its own programmes.〔(DFID, Building Peaceful States and Societies 2010)〕 Important critiques were developed by NGOs such as Conciliation Resources〔http://www.c-r.org/resources/occasional-papers/documents/CR_2Renegotiating_Settlement_20Mar09-2.pdf〕 and The Asia Foundation,〔http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/PoliticalSettlementsFINAL.pdf〕 focused primarily on Whaites proposition that a `political settlement' drives state-building. There have also been attempts to test out the thesis by looking at individual areas of state provision, particularly the area of healthcare. Further research on state society relations has also been undertaken by groups including the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium and the Crisis States Research Centre.〔http://www.healthandfragilestates.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=32&Itemid=38〕 While some development papers have tried to argue that state-building takes place in all countries and that much can be learnt from successful state-building there is a tendency to narrow the discussion to the most problematic contexts. As a result much of the literature on state-building is preoccupied with post conflict issues. See e.g. (Dahrendorf, 2003), (The Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, 2003), (Collier, 2003) (Fukuyama, 2004), (Paris, 2004), (Samuels 2005). Critiques common to both schools include inadequate strategy and a lack of coordination, staffing weaknesses, and that funding is insufficient or poorly timed. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that many of the tasks sought to be achieved are extremely complex and there is little clarity on how to best proceed. For instance, it is extremely difficult to provide security in a conflictual environment, or to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate armies successfully. It remains practically impossible to address vast unemployment in states where the economy is destroyed and there is high illiteracy, or to strengthen the rule of law in a society where it has collapsed. Moreover, the unintended negative consequences of international aid are more and more evident. These range from distortion of the economy to skewing relationship of accountability by the political elite towards internationals rather than domestic population. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) determined that basic state capacities are to i. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「State-building」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|