Aid and state-building, Part II: Afghanistan and Iraq

Topics
FacebookTwitterLinked-in
Palace of Westminster
Written evidence on trade governance for the APPG on Trade and Export Promotion
Sub- and non-state climate action: a framework to assess progress, implementation and impact
Westminster banner
Ripe for reform: UK scrutiny of international trade agreements

Part I of this article found that, in South Korea and Taiwan, institutional legacy and continuity as well as the politics of aid did matter for post-war state-building. The inheritance and continuity of Weberian states and the receipt of aid either as budget support or increasingly aligned with local priorities helped to foster state-building. Part II of the study in this article explores a different dynamic of post-war aid to Afghanistan and Iraq which had a legacy of neopatrimonial and weak states. It argues that under more adverse initial conditions – for a neopatrimonial state – the role of aid regime and state-building strategies become even more important. Under these conditions, aid and state-building strategies may undermine state-building if they induce discontinuity in the existing state capacity and create parallel institutions to those of the state. Depending on the policies, state weakness may be reinforced if leaders are preoccupied with the politics of patronage.

 

Access the full article here.