Violent and Criminal Non-State Actors

This chapter takes stock of the main scholarly and policy debates pertaining to the rise of violent and criminal governors. First, it delves into the reasons that drive these actors towards investing in governance; emphasizing the usefulness of governance provision to extract resources, enhance control, built legitimacy, and fulfil state-building aspirations. Second, the chapter briefly accounts for the main variations in the types of governance configurations established by criminal and violent actors, focusing on when and where these actors act as governors; what types of services they are likely to provide and to whom, as well as on how governance itself is delivered. This cursory examination, along with an analysis of the relationships these groups build while acting as governors, allows us to reflect on the impact of these non-state governors on the civilian population under their rule, as well as on the notions of sovereignty and statehood more broadly.

Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Coordination

This chapter focuses on hierarchical and non-hierarchical (including deliberative) governance modes in areas of limited statehood (i.e. on the ‘how’ of governance). Actorhood and modes of governance are orthogonal to each other. State actors are involved in non-hierarchical governance and non-state actors—including violent ones—sometimes exercise hierarchical control over people and territories. The effectiveness and problem-solving capacity of these modes of governance should not be underestimated. ‘New’ modes of governance appear to be more effective on average than hierarchical governance, particularly when the latter has to rely on force and coercion. Deliberative bodies, such as non-state justice institutions, can be rather effective in solving disputes and restoring peace within communities. Both hierarchical and non-hierarchical modes depend on two crucial conditions for their effectiveness, namely the social acceptance (legitimacy) of the governors and/or the governance institutions, on the one hand, and the institutional design of the governance arrangements, on the other.

Health

This chapter will introduce health as a policy field and carve out the implications of limited statehood for health governance. It will discuss broader trends in the literature on health governance in areas of limited statehood and introduce major controversies revolving around the notions of effectiveness, legitimacy, and sustainability. The chapter starts by discussing different definitions of health governance, arguing that the differentiation between domestic and global health governance makes little sense in the face of contemporary developments. It further engages with the question of which actors are involved in health governance, their motivations, resources, and core areas of activity. The chapter goes on to discuss how limited statehood affects health governance—nationally and globally—using the case of polio eradication. The last part will introduce the reader to issues of effectiveness and legitimacy with a particular focus on contemporary debates about the legitimacy of non-state actors in global health.

Foreign Aid

This chapter reviews the aid effectiveness literature to assess whether foreign aid given to areas of limited statehood (ALS) can be expected to promote economic and social outcomes in the recipient country. It distinguishes between different types of aid, motives for granting it, recipient country policies and characteristics, and the modalities by which aid is delivered, as these factors have been argued to influence its effectiveness. This chapter then compares these properties between recipients most affected by limited statehood and those least affected. This allows us to assess the relative effectiveness of aid in countries with ALS. We conclude that on average aid given there is less likely to be effective than elsewhere. As countries with ALS, however, constitute a heterogeneous group, the specifics of individual countries and the types of aid given matter.

Geographies of Limited Statehood

Starting from the presupposition that areas of limited statehood (ALS) are not ungoverned, but ‘differently’ governed, this chapter proposes a spatial grammar that analyses authority and governance as a socio-spatial relationship. This spatial grammar distinguishes four types of dynamic socio-spatial relations—territory, place, scale, and network—and enables us to spatially analyse (a) how political authority is contested, claimed, upheld, and disrupted; (b) how political life is negotiated, regulated, and practised; and (c) how these practices and their effects are spatially situated. We apply this spatial grammar to four case studies, each providing insight into one type of socio-spatial relations. These cases from Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), explain how the negotiation, contestation, and disruption of political authority is spatially situated and embedded in ALS. A spatial grammar focuses on the shifting, overlapping, and contradictory practices of claiming political and regulatory power.

Measuring Governance and Limited Statehood

Statehood and governance are core concepts in the political and social sciences. However, most available quantitative data on statehood and governance lack reliability and validity, suffers from methodological nationalism, and fails to include the governance contributions of external or non-state actors. The chapter argues that research on governance in areas of limited statehood is in need of a subnational turn in data generation and has to develop second-generation indicators, which allow for more differentiated analyses of statehood and governance. This contribution critically discusses existing data and approaches of measuring statehood and governance. Furthermore, through empirical examples, the chapter suggests possibilities for subnational measurements of statehood and governance. It here underlines empirically that stark differences between citizens’ perceptions of governance and actual governance provision exist, and that the governance contributions by external and non-state actors have to be considered. It concludes with quality criteria for future data collection efforts.

Policy

The idea that a competent state should be the dominant model of organization for political communities has always been at odds with the reality of ineffective governments in many parts of the world. With the end of the bipolar confrontation, the strategic interest in keeping these ‘fragile states’ alive significantly declined while the onset of globalization processes dramatically increased interdependence and interconnectedness. Thus, limited statehood (or ‘state fragility’) became associated with global security threats such as international terrorism and organized crime. The international interventions in ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan led to the emergence of ‘state-building’ to solve these problems. The rather mixed results of state-building efforts resulted in a more modest concept of ‘stabilization’ that focuses on immediate conflict management and preventing institutional failure. Building on the various theoretical and empirical developments, we suggest ‘governance-building’ as an alternative concept to guide policy vis-a-vis areas of limited statehood.

Migration

Starting from the observation that statehood and migration are co-constitutive, the chapter first recapitulates the evolution of migration governance in ‘areas of consolidated statehood’. It then turns to areas of limited statehood and shows that limited statehood indeed reflects in limited state involvement in migration governance, in particular regarding migrants’ rights, and that differences in countries’ formal commitments (e.g. between Asian and African states) have little repercussions on political practice. In addition, many governance functions linked to the provision of collective goods are assumed by international and private actors. Finally, consolidated states have engaged in intensive external governance promotion towards countries of origin and transit of migrants in an attempt to regain control over undesired migration flows. While symbolically upholding the notion of sovereignty, these practices of externalization may be interpreted as deliberate limitation of statehood.

Business

Business has become an important governor in areas of limited statehood (ALS). While the shadow of hierarchy is not necessary to incentivize companies, their contributions to governance still seem to require a minimum of statehood to be effective and legitimate. These findings point to a dilemma for (business) governance in ALS: companies are most likely to provide collective goods and services beyond their purview where those are needed the least to compensate for the lack of state governance. Yet, the literature has mostly focused on multinational companies that have their headquarters in democracies with consolidated statehood. Future research should focus on business in the non-OECD world to explore whether and to what degree consolidated statehood is necessary for governance by business to be effective and legitimate.

Human Rights, the Rule of Law, and Democracy

This chapter examines the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy by external actors in areas of limited statehood. It begins with the definition of key terms and a brief overview of the historical trajectory in which contemporary interventions by external actors unfold. We then discuss cross-cutting issues and introduce the key actors involved in the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. Analysing each of these issue areas in turn, we make three overarching arguments. Firstly, we highlight the multiplicity of outcomes that result from external interventions, whose impacts prove highly unevenly and spatially dispersed. Secondly, we emphasize the crucial influence of local actors and pre-existing institutions in shaping the outcomes of any governance intervention. Finally, we note that external actors have tended to rely on state-centric conceptualizations of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.