The global political economy of social crisis: Towards a critique of the ‘failed state’ ideology
2008; Routledge; Volume: 15; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/09692290701869688
ISSN1466-4526
Autores Tópico(s)Political Conflict and Governance
ResumoABSTRACT The notion of 'failed states' has gained widespread currency in political and academic discourse. This article contributes to a critique of the 'failed states' discourse. It identifies methodological flaws in the 'failed states' discourse which undermine its explanatory power, and proposes an alternative framework for analysing conditions of social crisis in neocolonial states, rooted in global political economy. This paper focuses on conditions of crisis in Africa. The discourse of 'state failure' characterises conditions of crisis as local in origin, the product of culture or poor leadership. The current condition of structural crisis in so many of Africa's neocolonial states must be situated in the imperial history of global capitalism. This requires examining the legacy of colonial transformation; the specific form of the postcolonial state, society and economy after independence, which tended in many cases to give rise to factional struggles and authoritarian rule; and the ways in which such 'internal' social tensions and contradictions have been reinforced by the global political economy, both the geo-politics of the Cold War and the contradictions of global capitalism. The argument is developed through examination of the specific case of Somalia. KEYWORDS: 'Failed state'ideologyneocolonialismimperialismAfricaSomalia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author very much thanks Julian Saurin and Alison Ayers for their numerous discussions. She also thanks Dani Gelz, Mari Ryömä, Mustapha Kamal Pasha and Eric Herring for helpful discussions. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the BISA conference in 2004, the WISC conference, Istanbul 2005, and at departmental research seminars at the University of Aberdeen and the University of Leeds. The author thanks participants at the BISA and WISC panels, and students and colleagues at Aberdeen and Leeds, for helpful discussion and comments. She is very grateful for the comments and suggestions from the two anonymous reviewers and the RIPE editors. Notes 1 This paper arises from the author's ongoing work with Julian Saurin and Alison Ayers on the 'failed states' discourse, which originated in the conference The Global Constitution of 'Failed States': The Consequences of a New Imperialism?, held at the University of Sussex in 2001. 2 DFID (2005), CitationBatt (2004), CitationBenn (2004), CitationStraw (2002), CitationBruntland (2002). 3 Menkhaus (2006), CitationCoyne (2006), CitationReno (2006), Boås and Jennings (2005), CitationPham (2004), CitationKreijen (2004), Rotberg (2004), CitationCrocker (2003), Milliken (2003), CitationWainwright (2003), Debiel et al. (2002), CitationGoodson (2001), CitationCliffe and Luckham (1999), CitationAlao (1999), CitationLangford (1999), CitationHerbst (1997), CitationGros (1996), CitationZartman (1995), CitationHelman and Ratner (1992). 4 ODI (2005), CitationBaker (2004), CitationMaass and Mepham (2004), CitationGarrett and Adams (2004), CitationWeinstein (2004), CitationWise (2004), African Studies Centre (2003), International Crisis Group (2002), CitationBaker and Weller (1998), CitationEriksson (1998). 5 The use of the term 'postcolonial' here does not refer specifically to postcolonial theory; nor does it imply that colonial conditions or relations are over. In the context of the argument developed in this paper, the present is understood in terms of neocolonialism. Postcolonial is used to indicate processes of change which have occurred during the period after the end of formal colonial rule. 6 Mazzetti (2006); CitationRice et al. (2006); Wax and DeYoung (2006); Samatar (2006); Lobe (2006); Woodward (2006).
Referência(s)