Assessing state failure: Implications for theory and policy

It is well known that anticipating state failure is as much a matter of being able to generate an effective response as it is of getting the analysis right. But is the international community furnished with a solid analytical base from which to generate good response strategies? In addressing this question this paper makes a threefold argument. First, most explanations of why states fail, including those that rely on comparative case study, historical trends, leading indicators, events-based data, field monitoring and expert opinion, are, in isolation, inadequate analytical tools for either risk assessment or early warning. Second, these disparate and often contending analytical approaches constitute a formidable and potentially useful tool-kit for risk assessment and early warning. However, there is a large and very real analytical gap between academics and practitioners on how to develop and use early warning techniques and methodologies. Third, if there is to be an improvement in the quality of response, future funding efforts should emphasise the integration of analytical findings and methodologies of various research programmes. In this regard, models and frameworks that relate directly to decision-making processes should have the highest priority. The process of mainstreaming effective early warning practices into the operations of states and organisations will set in motion a process of effective operational responses and the implementation and evaluation of cost-effective structural and operational prevention strategies.